Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Personal Incomes

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor the Exchequer the approximate amount received weekly by the 23,436,000 total working population if the total amount of wages, salaries, pensions, interest and dividends, after payment of Income and Surtax were equally divided.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The total amount of wages, salaries, pensions, interest and dividends in the year 1951, after Income Tax and Surtax, is estimated at £9,741 million. This total includes professional earnings, farming income, profits of sole traders and partnerships, and other forms of property income in respect of which separate figures of income after tax are not available. The total working population in mid-1951 was 23,323,000; £9,741 million, divided by 23,323,000, yields £8 0s. 8d. weekly per head.

Mr. Osborne: Do I understand, therefore, that if there were no rationing by the purse the Socialist Members of the House would have to accept less than half the salary they are now getting despite the fact that most of them—many of them—say they cannot live on the income they already have?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there any reason to believe that workers receiving £6 a week or less would object to having a rise to £8 a week?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It seems to me that that also does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the latest United Nations estimates show a fall in the income per capita in Britain from $773 to $639 between 1949 and 1951, whereas Canada shows an increase from $870 to $1,162 while the United States increase is from $1,453 to $1,787 for the same years; what steps he proposes to take to make the nation realise the gravity of its economic position; and what fresh action he proposes to take to save us from economic disaster.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): The apparent fall between 1949 and 1951 in the national income per caput of the U.K. quoted by my hon. Friend is due to a change in the method used by the United Nations Secretariat for converting national incomes from national currencies into dollars. The figures are, therefore, not comparable.
As regards the remainder of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made inside and outside the House.

Mr. Osborne: Could my hon. Friend give the comparable figures if the same calculations were used, because when I obtained these figures in New York, four months ago, I was not told there was any alteration in the basic calculation?

Mr. Maudling: It would be difficult to do so. The figures in 1949 were based on converting pounds into dollars, on a rough estimate of the comparative cost of living in each country. In 1951 the basis was the official exchange rates. In fact, between 1949 and 1951, it is estimated, the real income per head in the United Kingdom rose by 3½ per cent.

Mineworkers' President's Watch (Customs Duty)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers has had to pay Customs Duty on two gold watches given to him as a gift by the American Mineworkers' Union, whereas other travellers last year were allowed to bring in gifts free of duty; and what is the reason for the difference of treatment on payment of Customs Duty.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The gold watch presented to Sir Will Lawther by the American Mineworkers' Union has been admitted free of Customs charges under Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1933. The gold watch presented to Lady Lawther on the same occasion is not admissible under this provision, and Customs charges have been levied as in other similar cases.

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since I put this Question down the Prime Minister kindly intervened, and that it was arising out of that kind intervention that Sir Will Lawther got his money back? Can the hon. Gentleman say why this charge was made in the first instance? Was there any neglect?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a somewhat infrequently used statutory provision, and I think the Customs officer concerned was perhaps imperfectly aware of it at the moment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek an appropriate opportunity to express his appreciation to my right hon. Friend.

National Debt

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase has taken place in the cost of the interest paid on the National Debt from 30th November, 1951, to 30th November, 1952.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The cost to the Budget of the National Debt charge in this period is estimated at about £95 million more than in the 12 months ended 30th November, 1951; £39 million of this increase was due to the payment in December, 1951, of interest on the U.S.A. and Canadian loans.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable belief in the country, from the figures just given, that the benefits of many of the Government economies made in the last 12 months were really passed on to the moneylenders?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that there will always be relief as a result of the answers given from this Bench. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not a fair statement of the facts.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we, then, to understand from the reply that the increase in the cost to the Exchequer of the increase

in the Bank rate was some £46 million in the last year?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, relates to the total figure of the National Debt.

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the National Debt is held by financial institutions, industrial companies, and individuals, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it would be of great help to the House and to the country if these figures could be given, because we could then see whether these increased interest charges have been passed on to individuals or to moneylending institutions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whether or not it would be of help is, no doubt, a matter of opinion. But it remains an academic question because the information is not, in point of fact, available.

Gold (Price)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increases which would be made in the gold and dollar balances of the sterling area if the dollar price of gold produced in the sterling area was related to world commodity prices.

Mr. Maudling: Many estimates of this kind have been made, but the results vary very widely according to the base period adopted for the comparison, and to a lesser extent according to the commodity price index employed.

Mr. Bence: That is rather an ambiguous answer, if I may say so. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, on a general observation of the position, if the discrimination shown by the American monetary authorities against a large sterling dollar product were eliminated it may be that the sterling dollar balances would be considerably increased?

Mr. Maudling: It may be an ambiguous answer, but it was an ambiguous Question. Taking the 1938 relationship between gold and commodities, the value of the gold reserves


would be increased. Taking the 1928 relationship, the value of the gold reserves would be decreased. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular years in mind for comparison, I shall be glad to give him the figures.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that what my hon. Friend is getting at is that the price of commodities has gone up enormously and gold has not? In fact, gold is now so expensive to produce that nobody can afford to produce it, which is a ridiculous position. What would be the effect if, for example, the dollar price of gold were doubled?

Mr. Maudling: If the right hon. Gentleman would put a Question down I shall be glad to find the answer.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will insist on a revaluation of gold in terms of dollars to a figure in keeping with the rise in commodity prices since 1939 before agreeing to free convertibility of the £ sterling.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect a reply to a hypothetical question.

Mr. Stokes: On the contrary, I do. I am sure the Minister knows well enough that I put the Question down to get a reply. Is he aware that the price of gold is now at such a ridiculous level that it is almost uneconomical to produce it, yet it is so valuable that it forms the basis of all our currency arrangements? Surely he has a proper answer to give to my Question.

Mr. Maudling: I think it would be not proper, but improper, if I were to answer the right hon. Gentleman's hypothetical question. I appreciate the importance of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman's concern that it should be kept constantly before the House and the country, but I cannot make any further statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can we take it that the Commonwealth conference will be discussing the whole question of the price of gold?

Mr. Maudling: That is the sort of question which would probably be considered, but I cannot state exactly what is to be considered.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter is causing great dissatisfaction on both sides of the House, and will he make it clear to the Americans at every conceivable opportunity that it is time that this injustice to the sterling area was righted?

Mr. Maudling: As I said, this is a very important question indeed, but it is also a very complicated question and I cannot make any further statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the former Minister of State for Economic Affairs about this matter?

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that only 68 gold mines are now in production in Canada, compared with 160 in 1942, owing to the fact that the cost of production is now higher than the artificially fixed price of gold; and what representations he proposes to make in collaboration with the Canadian Government to get an adjustment in price sufficient to enable the gold companies both in Canada and the Gold Coast to operate effectively.

Mr. Maudling: I am not aware of all the reasons for the decrease in the number of gold mines in production in Canada since 1942. I regret that I have nothing further to say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at present.

Mr. Stokes: Has the Minister read the reports from Ottawa dated about the 12th of this month? Is it not rather extraordinary that this valuable metal, so valuable that it is the basis on which all our currencies are founded, is now so costly to produce in terms of its present valuation that nobody can afford to produce it? Are we not getting into an absurd muddle?

Mr. Maudling: Her Majesty's Government are not getting into any muddle. I understand that the variation in gold production in Canada is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stokes: If the Minister will study the reports he will see that it is clear that those mines have closed because they cannot afford to produce, with gold at 35 dollars per fine ounce. What does the Minister propose to do about it to help the Canadian Government?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that my right hon. Friend is responsible to the House of Commons for that particular matter.

Apprentices' Tax Allowances

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the great hardship inflicted on parents of apprentices by the meagre allowances recognised for Income Tax purposes; and if he will take steps to ensure that a junior going to work is treated not less favourably in this respect than a junior remaining at school.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This matter was discussed at length in this year's Finance Act debates, when the limit of earnings at which child allowance ceases to be due in these cases was raised from £13 to £26. I would remind the hon. Member that it is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend proceed to allocate any further bonuses to Surtax payers in the next Budget, will they get down to this question and recognise that there is a grave anomaly between the parents of apprentices and the parents of students who are continuing their education at very great cost to public funds, and that it is a question on which the Treasury should be more alive to the hardships inflicted on many constituents of hon. Members on these benches as well as on the benches opposite?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in this year's Finance Act the limit of these allowances was doubled. He will also, no doubt, recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made it clear that any question of a more radical review of this matter must await the views of the Royal Commission.

Opera Companies (Grants)

Mr. H. Brooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial assistance from public funds has been granted or promised for the current year to the Covent Garden Opera Company, the Sadlers Wells Opera Company and the Carl Rosa Opera Company, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: £240,000, £60,000 and £3,000 respectively.

Mr. Brooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present policy of the Arts Council in granting practically nothing to the Carl Rosa Company, because it has lavished all its available funds on the other great opera companies, is forcing the Carl Rosa Company to give up its well known tours, and that there will be a great deal of criticism if the Carl Rosa Company is thus forced out of existence?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend may be aware, discussions between the Carl Rosa Opera Company and the Arts Council are taking place at the present time, and I do not think that it would be helpful if I were to comment.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all these things should not necessarily be centred in London, and that there should be some contribution made to companies in the outlying areas?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he himself, I think, will recall that the allocations are, in general, made by the Arts Council and not direct by the Treasury.

Mr. Nicholson: Why do the Arts Council refuse to give any money to provincial repertory companies, which, in their own way, provide just as much cultural entertainment as that which is provided in London?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should want notice of that question.

Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that year after year protests are made about the large sums spent on subsidising operas in London and about how little is done for the provinces, and will he see whether that state of affairs cannot be brought to an end this year?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the Arts Council will pay attention to such views as may be expressed in this House.

United Kingdom-India (Double Tax Relief)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will include the need for reciprocal tax relief between India and the United Kingdom among the


subjects for consideration at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully understand the need for a double taxation agreement with India, but the negotiation of such an agreement involves highly technical matters affecting this country and India which could not conveniently be considered at the conference.

Mr. Remnant: Is the Financial Secretary aware of the importance of this matter to sterling companies operating in India which, owing to the unusual rules as to domicile imposed by India, have to pay on interest from their gilt-edged investments, taxes amounting to 24s. in the £?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of the importance of this matter both to the companies to which my hon. Friend refers and to the general national interest.

Coronation Souvenirs (Tax)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer so to modify the conditions of Purchase Tax that articles which are not normally subject to tax or are taxed at a lower rate do not become liable to tax or to tax at a higher rate merely because they are ornamented as Coronation souvenirs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The general principle of the Purchase Tax law in question is, I think, sound. I am considering a particular case to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention and will write to him.

Mr. Higgs: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this a matter of some urgency, because businesses are already in the process of putting articles into manufacture? Will he also bear in mind that some concessions were made by the late Administration in respect of the Festival of Britain, and that a great many people hope that Her Majesty's present Government will be at least as generous in respect of the Coronation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of these considerations, and I think that my hon. Friend will be well aware that he raised this matter with me as recently as Monday of this week.

Mr. Shurmer: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the ruling that these articles would carry a 100 per cent. Purchase Tax was only recently intimated to the manufacturers, and that if this 100 per cent. tax is continued, these articles will become too expensive for the home market, and manufacturers in the City of Birmingham will lose thousands of pounds which they have spent in tooling up? Articles which, as Festival of Britain emblems, bore 66⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax now have to bear 100 per cent. Purchase Tax because a Crown has been added to them. Pencils which had 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax on them have now 100 per cent. Purchase Tax because they have a Crown on the top. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know when the manufacturers became aware of the legal position, but I must say that that has been the position for some considerable time.

Cathode Tubes (Tax)

Major Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will exempt fluorescent hot cathode tubes from Purchase Tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This suggestion is being considered.

British Films (Tax Relief)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an estimate of the annual loss of revenue from entertainments tax which would result from the introduction of a 10 per cent. discriminatory tax relief in respect of the exhibition of British films.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The discriminatory use of the Entertainments Duty in this way would be contrary to our international obligations. The revenue aspect of the matter does not therefore arise.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Financial Secretary aware that in spite of G.A.T.T. this kind of discriminatory relief is in operation in some European countries, notably Italy, with very great success, and will he therefore inquire into that aspect of the matter? If G.A.T.T. is not to operate in those countries, why should we not have relief here for British film production?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Any question of the carrying out of the obligations of other countries under G.A.T.T. is, in the first place, a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

War Damage (Business Claims)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now fix a date under Section 85 (1) of the War Damage Act of 1943, dealing with general settlement of claims under the Business Scheme of Part II.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 25th November.

Motor Cars (Purchase Tax)

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the dislocation at present being caused in the retail motor trade by uncertainty over the future incidence of Purchase Tax, he will make a statement.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the threat to trade and employment in the motor industry arising out of the present level of Purchase Tax; and what steps he will take in this respect to assist the motor industry in its difficulties.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend has under consideration various representations which have been made to him on this subject, but I am not at the moment able to make any statement.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this is now an urgent matter? This tax, imposed in inflationary circumstances, today puts a severe handicap on the motor industry in the present deflationary circumstances. Is he also aware that it is the forecast of a leading Midland manufacturer that unless this tax is reduced there will be severe unemployment in the motor industry before Christmas?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All relevant considerations will be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the Minister's reply mean that there is a possibility of

some announcement being made on this matter during the next few weeks, or the next month or two, before the Budget?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman ought not, I think, to read into the answer anything more than is actually in it.

Captain Soames: Will my hon. Friend consider having the Purchase Tax on motor cars collected by the licensing authorities, and in that way obviate the necessity of the retailer carrying a large amount of Purchase Tax on his books and risking, if the tax were taken off, a considerable loss?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the importance of restoring the export trade in motor cars, will the hon. Gentleman see that this matter is raised in the Commonwealth Conference which is about to start?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should want notice of that question.

Mr. Edelman: To end uncertainty in this matter and to prevent what is becoming more and more like a buyers' strike, will the hon. Gentleman treat this as a matter of extreme urgency and make a statement about the position at the first possible opportunity?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Government never indulge in unnecessary delay.

Mr. Manuel: Today's funny story.

High Court Judges (Salaries)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now introduce legislation to increase the salaries of Her Majesty's High Court judges since such increase is long overdue.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Government have been giving thought to the financial position of Her Majesty's High Court judges. But I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Marlowe: Can my hon. Friend think of any other appointment which has not had a salary increase for 121 years? Is he aware that in this matter he is bound to have the support of Her Majesty's Opposition, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for


Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), when he was Financial Secretary, promised to introduce this legislation in 1949 and failed to do so? Is it not time that this Government kept pledges which the last Government failed to keep?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would be a very full-time occupation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a further hardship for Her Majesty's judges? If they do not get the increase, they will not be able to buy any morning eggs.

Scottish Universities (Grants)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the non-recurrent grants to Scottish universities for the period 1947–51 were approximately only one-tenth of those to English universities.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The expansion of the universities in England and Wales has been proportionately greater than that of the Scottish universities, and plans for new building and re-equipment were put forward earlier by the former than by the latter.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is most unfair and that universities in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, a notorious haunt of Border brigands, got as much as all the Scottish universities put together in the last quinquennium?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All comparisons, and particular Border comparisons, are proverbially odious, but the hon. Gentleman will be consoled to know that there is still one full-time student for every 340 of the population in Scotland compared with one for every 639 in England and Wales.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the scarcity of graduates for posts suitable for them is extremely great and that the prosperity of the country depends on making the best use of the brains in the country? Will he see that no stinginess about grants to Scotland prevents boys who are capable of taking degrees from reaching the tops of the professions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While no one can give the unqualified assurance for which the right hon. Gentleman asks, I

can assure him that we are very well aware of the great importance of the matter.

Mr. M. MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the university situation in Scotland is not a simple and homogeneous one, and that the two smaller universities ought to be built up while the other two are far larger than any unitary university institutions in England and far beyond the optimum desired by those who are interested in this matter? Is he aware that there is a strong case for discrimination in the grants as between Aberdeen and St. Andrew on the one hand and Edinburgh and Glasgow on the other?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is as may be, but the hon. Gentleman will not lure me into a Scottish inter-university controversy.

Statuettes and Ashtrays (Tax)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that statuettes of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh do not attract Purchase Tax; that ash trays are subject to 66 per cent. Purchase Tax; and why, therefore, the Purchase Tax is raised to 100 per cent. when statuette and ashtray are combined.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This matter is governed by the ordinary Purchase Tax law. The exemption in respect of statuettes of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness which I announced on 31st July for one year from 1st October, 1952, applies only to statuettes as such and not when statuettes of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness are used to decorate some other article. Ashtrays, to which such statuettes are attached, are taxable at the rate applicable to articles incorporating statuettes.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend aware, first, that, on the facts stated, this is an extremely illogical situation, and, secondly, that the result is that we shall lose a large number of overseas orders which we should otherwise have got because home sales, bearing 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, are likely to be negligible and manufacturers cannot afford to tool up on that basis? Will he look at this again?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend has any case which he desires to draw to our attention, I shall be very glad to examine it.

Mr. Assheton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is but one of the illustrations of the many anomalies and follies of Purchase Tax and that a general review of the whole tax is long overdue?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While I do not necessarily go as far as my right hon. Friend does, I should be the last man in the House to dispute that the Purchase Tax law sometimes involves intricate and difficult problems.

Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Tax)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abolish the Purchase Tax on crash-helmets in order to encourage their use by motor-cyclists.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am considering this matter though I fear there are great difficulties involved.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Instead of penalising the use of this essential life-saving precaution and, in effect, putting a tax on safety, will the hon. Gentleman consider the very sound advice on this subject which was given in a speech at the opening of the Motor Cycle Exhibition at Earls Court a few days ago?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope my answer indicated sympathy with this question, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must recall that there are many other forms of protective clothing which are subject to tax and that consideration of a concession in one direction would inevitably give rise to consideration of the other cases as well.

Mr. Deedes: When my hon. Friend considers this, will he bear in mind how strongly large numbers of doctors and surgeons feel about it, in view of the wastage of time, money and their services in dealing with the cracked heads of motor-cyclists? If he is prepared to remit the tax he will get it back by a saving on the National Health Service.

Charities (Legal Covenants)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he undertakes his review of the national finances at the end of the year, if he will reduce

the periods of covenants of legal charities from seven to five years; and what would be the loss of revenue if such a proposal were adopted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. It is not possible to estimate precisely what this proposal would cost the Revenue, but it might be a considerable amount.

Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many charitable organisations which have adopted this practice are finding their subscribers very reluctant to enter into contracts for as long a period as seven years in these very uncertain days, and that, if the period was reduced, subscribers would probably renew their contracts and there would be no loss in revenue? Will he put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to give it serious consideration at the proper time?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that under the present law the number of covenants of this sort is increasing.

Wireless Batteries (Tax)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department will, in future, keep separate returns of the Purchase Tax collected on the sale of wet and dry wireless batteries, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. The collection of detailed information of this kind would impose on traders and officials alike a heavy administrative burden which I consider would not be justified.

Mr. Crouch: Does my hon. Friend's reply suggest that among the thousands of civil servants that we have there are not a few who could be spared for this task? Is he also suggesting that he is unable to distinguish the wets from the dries?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The last part of that supplementary question seems to have a Transatlantic ring. My hon. Friend will appreciate that a good deal of the burden which he suggests should be imposed would fall not on the public service but on the traders concerned. It is our desire to effect every possible reduction in the size of the public services.

Australia (Money Borrowing Facilities)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the Australian Government every possible facility for borrowing money in London, so as to assist the return to normal trade as soon as possible.

Mr. Maudling: No such application has been made by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. While we always consider sympathetically any proposals or requests made to us by Commonwealth Governments, I regret that our economic situation severely limits the extent to which we can finance exports with loans from London.

Mr. Stokes: While it may very well be that no official application has been made, is the hon. Gentleman aware that private applications have been made and have been refused, and does he not think it very important that loans should be available to enable Australia to buy the equipment necessary to improve and increase her primary production?

Mr. Maudling: I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to expand trade between the United Kingdom and Australia, but the ability of a country to lend money overseas is entirely conditioned by its ability to send exports abroad without immediate payment.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not impossible for Australia to improve and increase her primary production unless, first of all, she is given the tools with which to do that? How can she achieve that except by borrowing money?

Mr. Maudling: There are possibilities and impossibilities on both sides. We do all we can.

Ministerial Appointments (Salaries)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the total amounts of Ministerial salaries will be increased or reduced by the appointments taking effect on 15th December next.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The whole series of changes, when completed, will result in an increase by one in the number of Ministerial appointments, and an increase in salaries of £3,500 per annum before deduction of tax.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a fact that whatever else may be the result of this Ministerial campaign of musical chairs, any reduction in Government expenditure to relieve the overburdened taxpayer will not be part of it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the country will get very good value for its money.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the new Minister of Materials will lose as a result of his promotion to his high post, owing to the fact that he no longer has the advantage of being able to draw £500 a year Parliamentary expenses? Would the Financial Secretary consider paying him some compensation for the loss that he has suffered?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That does not arise on this Question.

Theatrical Performances (Tax Relief)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the hon. Member for Croydon, East, was required to pay entertainment tax for seeing "Ring out the Bells" at the Victoria Palace while being allowed to see "An Italian Straw Hat" at the Old Vic free of such tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because while the latter production was provided by a society not conducted or established for profit which has partly educational aims objects and activities, and which was, therefore, eligible for exemption under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, the former production was not so provided.

Sir H. Williams: Why should the more vulgar performance pay less tax than the less vulgar? Why is it to the advantage of the Welfare State to subsidise an institution which provides no revenue in the form of Income Tax?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The test of exemption is not whether the particular performance was calculated to educate those attending it, but it is related to the nature of the society itself.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Financial Secretary say whether any entertainment tax was paid by those who were fortunate enough to witness the publicity-seeking


performance of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) at a recent function in Croydon?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No doubt if the hon. Gentleman thinks that is a serious question he will put it down.

Central Office of Information (Budget Publicity)

Mr. Renton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much money will have been spent by the Central Office of Information during the current financial year in telling taxpayers how their money is spent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One poster on the national budget was produced at a cost of £200. Some other information on this subject may well also be conveyed in other items of publicity, but it will certainly not cost, in all, more than a few hundred pounds.

Mr. Renton: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Central Office of Information is devoting quite a lot of its time and money to telling the taxpayers how their money is spent, and that most taxpayers would prefer to pay a little less tax and find the information for themselves rather than continue to pay the tax?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Any taxpayer who expects that his tax bill would be substantially reduced by the cutting out of £200 is living in a somewhat unrealistic atmosphere.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Examination Question

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the following question: "Is there a place for a Liberal Party in Great Britain Today?" was contained in the January, 1952, Civil Service Commission Entrance Examination, General Paper 1; and if he will give instructions that this type of question should not be included in future papers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is "Yes, Sir." The question referred to was one of 10, any three of which required to be answered at this examination for entry to the Administrative Class. Responsibility for choice of questions

rests with the Civil Service Commissioners.
I can see no reason why this question should not have been included with others as an academic exercise to test the intelligence and powers of expression of candidates for the highest levels of the Civil Service.

Mr. Lewis: Would it not have been far better, more appropriate and certainly more up to date if the question had been: "In view of their continual broken pledges is there any need for the Tory Party today?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. C. Davies: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—very hopefully—whether, if this question were put to him, he would answer it enthusiastically in the affirmative?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That does not arise out of this question, which is addressed to candidates for the Civil Service.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the hon. Gentleman undertake to print a selection of the answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Working Hours

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government continue to discharge civil servants on the grounds of redundancy while Civil Service staffs generally continue to work 7 hours longer per week in London and 1½ hours longer elsewhere than in 1939.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot agree to any suggestion that individual working hours in the Service should be reduced in order to save redundant staff from discharge.

Mr. Houghton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any other industry in Britain where the workers have accepted discharges on the grounds of redundancy when overtime is being worked as a regular practice, a great deal of it without any pay whatever?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without seeking to indulge in comparisons which would probably be misleading, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the duty of


the Government to keep the demands of the Civil Service on the nation's manpower down to the minimum consistent with efficiency.

Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform his hon. Friends who are in the "hatchet group" behind him of the information he has just given about the Civil Service?

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many more civil servants would be needed if the general level of hours were restored to the prewar figure; and how many more staff would be required in the tax branch of the Inland Revenue Department if staffs ceased to take work home for performance by members of their families.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is, very roughly, 28,000. The answer to the second part is, about 750 full-time clerks.

Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear these matters in mind when he receives representations from his hon. and right hon. Friends about cuts in the Civil Service?

Equal Pay

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards the implementation of his declared policy of the partial introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) on 14th October, he had been asked by the T.U.C. and by the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council to authorise the Whitley Council to begin discussions on the various possible schemes for the gradual introduction of equal pay. My right hon. Friend made it clear to the Staff Side that, while he would consider this proposition, he would not wish to raise false hopes that it would be likely that a start could be made on equal pay in the near future. Any discussions would, therefore, have to be non-committal.
The Staff Side have now said that they do not wish to enter into joint discussions the outcome of which the Government might not be able to accept.

Mr. Lewis: Surely the hon. Gentleman remembers that he himself said that the Government would implement equal pay on a partial basis. Are we now to take it that the Government are backing out from the statement that was made in debate?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The matter remains, as has been clearly stated from this Box on a number of occasions, that we hope to make progress with this matter just as soon as the national economic and financial position permits.

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the dispute between the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council and the Treasury on the application of the principle of equal pay is within the scope of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I endorse the ruling of successive Governments that questions of major policy, including that of equal pay, should not be submitted to arbitration.

Mr. Houghton: How can the hon. Gentleman defend excluding a matter of pay from the scope of an arbitration tribunal, even though it is a matter of pay affecting women only? Will he explain the circumstances in which the scope of this Tribunal excludes this important matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For the reasons which have been expressly stated by successive Governments since at least 1918; that is to say, that on matters of major policy the Government must retain its unfettered responsibility to Parliament.

Miss Ward: If that argument is to prevail, does it not mean that we are tied by every stupid action that the last Socialist Government took; and is it right that, because successive Governments have adopted what appears to be a most unfair principle, this beneficent Government should go on carrying out that stupidity?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, "No, Sir." The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the hon. Gentleman's first answer mean that if the staff side draft terms of reference to the Arbitration Tribunal and send them


forward the Government will advise the Tribunal not to hear the case, or that the Government will not turn up when the case is heard?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It means that the practice preserved by a number of Governments since 1918 will continue.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to what is a perfectly proper question? Would the Government not put in an appearance at the Arbitration Tribunal if the staff side exercised their undoubted right to send terms of reference forward to it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the first place, that is a hypothetical question. In the second place, though no doubt important, it is not this Question.

Recruitment

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider reducing the annual intake to the Civil Service for a period, in order to give greater opportunity for older civil servants to remain at work.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Permanent recruitment to the executive and clerical classes of the Civil Service has already been reduced below the level which is desirable in order to maintain a healthy permanent Service.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: When my hon. Friend refers to a level which is desirable, is he aware that the Ministry of Labour have dropped their intake altogether? Is that not a practice which might be encouraged by other Departments?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The problems of the Ministry of Labour are not, of course, the same problems as that of the whole of the Service, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is essential to maintain the efficiency of the Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (BRITISH DELEGATION)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has sent Mr. R. S. Symons from his Department to join the British delegation in the Argentine.

Mr. Maudling: To advise on the financial aspects of the present negotiations.

Mr. Osborne: As the negotiations have been going on since February, does this mean that the stumbling block is a financial one and not a future trade one?

Mr. Maudling: The negotiations are in progress, and it would be quite wrong for me to make any statement at present about their course.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports were made in the past three years to Her Majesty's Government by Viscount Alanbrook and Sir Thomas Gardiner, as Government-appointed directors upon the Board of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, about the difficulties into which the company was getting over the agreement with the Iranian Government; and through what channels these reports were made.

Mr. Maudling: I regret that I cannot disclose information about communications which pass between Her Majesty's Government and their representatives.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that in this case some of the trouble might have been averted if better information had been forthcoming about the crisis that was looming up? Is it not rather remarkable that these two gentlemen, appointed by the Government, considered this a very unimportant part of their activity?

Mr. Maudling: Throughout the tenure of office of both Governments close contact has been maintained between the Government and the oil companies.

Sir Edward Keeling: Is it not a fact that when the Government acquired a majority shareholding in this company they suggested that while the Government directors should not interfere in the day-to-day administration of the company they should take an interest in the political affairs?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the matter of the powers of Government directors arises on the next Question.

Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?

Mr. Maudling: The channel through which these reports should have been made are the appropriate Government Departments.

Mr. Beswick: What are the appropriate Government Departments?

Mr. Maudling: It depends upon the subject.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of the nominal capital of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is held by Her Majesty's Government; what proportion of the total nominal capital this represents; and what proportion of the board of directors of the company are nominated by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Maudling: The authorised capital of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is £33 million. Out of a total of £20,137,500 of issued ordinary stock Her Majesty's Government own £11,250,000, i.e., about 56 per cent. Out of a total of £12,706,252 of issued preference stock Her Majesty's Government hold £1,000.
Her Majesty's Government have the right to appoint two directors to the board of the company.
The total number of directors on the board is 12.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the financial holding of the Government, and the political and social consequences of the activities of the company, are such that the Government's representation should be increased not only in quantity but in quality?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I do not think the quality of representation could be improved. As to quantity, Government directors have powers additional to those possessed by ordinary directors in that they have the right of veto over any decision of the board, subject to an appeal by the board as a whole to Her Majesty's Government.

Sir E. Keeling: I rather thought my hon. Friend said he was going to answer my previous supplementary on this Question.

Mr. Maudling: I thought that my statement on the powers of Government directors would cover the point which my hon. Friend had in mind.

Sir E. Keeling: It does not.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON MUSEUM (WARDERS)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the number of warders at the London Museum increased from 13 in 1951–52 to 17 in 1952–53.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In April, 1951, there were 10 warders at the London Museum: now there are 15. The increase of 5 is due to the re-opening of the museum to the public in July, 1951, on its removal to Kensington Palace from Lancaster House.

Mr. Erroll: Could not the cost of the additional number of warders be offset by adjustment of the admission price to the public?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will put that Question down I will endeavour to get him the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Morley: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which university or technical institution is to be selected for the proposed University of Technology.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has made any decision as yet regarding the choice of a technical college or institution to be the future University of Technology.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce the Government's decision shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Bacon Pigs

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the substantial decline in the delivery of bacon pigs to the Ministry of Food since May, 1952, what action he is taking to rectify the situation; and what improvement can be expected in 1953.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): The fall in the number of pigs sold to the Ministry of Food since May has been due to purely


seasonal causes, although they have continued on the average to be nearly 50 per cent. above last year. Deliveries are now returning to a higher level. Some increase in the numbers of breeding herds in 1953 is expected, the rate of expansion of pig products depending largely on progress in expanding the production of home-grown feedingstuffs.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease Notices

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps, through the agricultural executive committees, to encourage taking down notices prohibiting the public from agricultural land owing to foot-and-mouth disease, as soon as the ban on the movement of cattle is lifted.

Sir T. Dugdale: My veterinary staff are responsible for the removal of all notices put up by order of the Ministry. As regards notices put up by farmers, I am asking local authorities and my veterinary staff, who are responsible for operating the foot-and-mouth disease regulations, to do what they can to encourage the removal of these notices when the need for them has passed.

Mr. Williams: Thank you very much.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Prices and Profits

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made by the White Fish Authority in its costing investigations into prices and profits in the industry.

Sir T. Dugdale: The White Fish Authority have completed two costings inquiries into inshore fishing and one into coastal wholesaling. They are now conducting an investigation into inland wholesaling and making preparations for costing studies of retailing and fish frying.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the widespread dissatisfaction at fish prices, will the Minister do all he can to expedite the report on these investigations? Can he say whether fish friers and fishmongers will be included in the costings survey.

Sir T. Dugdale: The reply to the first part of the question is "Yes." The reply

to the second part is "Fish friers, certainly"; but it is a matter for the Ministry of Food.

Landing Restrictions

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take in respect of the scheme prepared by distant water trawler owners to restrict landings of white fish by the vessels of British owners who subscribe to the scheme, in view of that part of the first report of the White Fish Authority which stated that it was undesirable that the decision as to whether British catches should be restricted or not should rest with a small group of trawler owners whose interests might not always be identical with those of consumers generally.

Sir T. Dugdale: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the distant water owners' development scheme which was introduced in 1950 to avert the danger of a market collapse for distant water fish such as occurred in that year. The White Fish Authority are discussing with the trawler-owners a proposal to replace these arrangements by a statutory scheme under the provisions of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951.
Any such scheme would have to be submitted to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Food, and myself, and would also require approval by Parliament.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that the new scheme, provided it is put into operation quickly enough, will be welcome? Will he also bear in mind that Hull-Grimsby trawler owners, who have made big profits, get together for the purpose of securing bigger profits and less fish for the public?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (BRITISH SCIENTISTS' ACHIEVEMENTS)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will now have published in full, in a White Paper, the history of Britain's contribution that led to the liberation of atomic energy, giving dates, names of the physicists, engineers and concerns; the results obtained at different stages; on what date and stage of development the group of physicists


left for the United States of America; the understandings made; and the financial arrangements;
(2) if he will make a full statement on the visits, transactions and arrangements made when Mr. H. G. Urey of the United States of America and others interchanged ideas on the results obtained on the production of heavy water; what was the nature of Professor J. D. Cockcroft's letter, dated 28th December, 1940, to Mr. R. H. Fowler; what contributions were made in the experimentation with heavy water by Mr. Chadwick, Professor M. E. Oliphant and Dr. Allibone; what companies or persons composed the British group upon which their work was reported to the United States of America concerns by Mr. R. H. Fowler; what was the nature of the correspondence that passed between the principal people of Britain and the United States of America on heavy water; and what financial arrangements were made for the United States of America to be provided with British knowledge and experimentation results.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): A White Paper was issued by the late Government in 1945. I might have a lot to say on these matters and I dare say that some day another White Paper will be published giving a fuller account of what happened in 1945 and earlier. But I do not think that the time has come yet.

Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that it is my desire to put on record credit where it is due, particularly to those men who worked so long and so hard, like Professors Rutherford, Chatwick and Cockcroft and Dr. Allibone? In some parts of the world that credit does not seem to be given to these men. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when preparing his statement, that, if I remember rightly, the last White Paper was published before the termination of hostilities and could not contain the information for which I am asking? Will the Prime Minister remember this, so that the whole facts can be placed before the public and the world can see, as the years go by, what they owe to British engineers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. No one would be more content than myself to see the whole story unfolded. I

pressed this matter several times since the war, during the period when previous Governments were in power. But I do not think at this particular moment I could add anything to what I have said in my answer.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the House to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's original answer that he does not think the time is opportune to give anything more than the meagre information that so far has been disclosed about our efforts in furthering atomic energy? Will he say whether this matter is a closed subject because of military security?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. A great deal of it belongs to history, but I think that in publishing history or historical facts consideration should always be given to the views and wishes of those with whom we are working in close friendship.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there are very many men and women who played a large part in winning the war whose work, for security reasons, cannot at the moment be estimated at its true value?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think that is perfectly true, and some day the full history of the British contribution to those formidable and terrible events, which is a great one, will be made public. It is quite true we could not make the bomb over here during the war because we were under bombardment, but we made a great contribution and I do not think full consideration has been given to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE AND HOME GUARD (RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that both the Civil Defence Corps and the Home Guard are undermanned and the campaigns to recruit to them are competitive, he will indicate which organisations should receive priority and give instructions to stop recruiting to the other.

The Prime Minister: I am advised that, over the country as a whole, there is sufficient manpower to meet the requirements of both the Civil Defence


Corps and the Home Guard. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Swingler: Does the Prime Minister not agree that the multiplication of weak organisations is as undesirable and futile as the reshuffling of incompetent Ministers. Is he not aware that half the London boroughs have fewer than one-fifth of the Civil Defence people they require and that the same applies to many great cities, including Grimsby, Hull, Nottingham, Leicester, Leeds and Stoke-on-Trent? Does this not require further consideration?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member does not seem to me to be seeking information in his supplementary question as much as endeavouring to make a score.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNDER-SECRETARY FOR WELSH AFFAIRS

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister how much money has been saved by not filling the post of Under-Secretary for Welsh Affairs.

The Prime Minister: Up to 25th November the total has amounted to £113 2s. 11d.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that the appointment he has made has been so badly received in Wales that he would have been better advised to have gone on saving the money?

The Prime Minister: I do not see why it should be so badly received in Wales. There was no counterpart to it in the previous Government. The Minister who has been chosen is of the Welsh race and served in the Welsh Guards.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Prime Minister kindly publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a photograph of the new Minister, so that Welsh Members may recognise him?

The Prime Minister: There are many people whose photographs are not regularly and immediately noticed by Members of this House, but who, nevertheless, have within them potentialities which will enable them to give effective service to the State.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Prime Minister tell Welsh Members in this House of any substantial associations that the noble Lord has with the Principality where he is as unknown as he is here?

The Prime Minister: No doubt there could be improvements made in the Parliamentary representation of Wales, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman we will devote our attention to this aspect of the matter. There are advantages, in the present difficult conditions of the House of Commons, in having a Minister in the other House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Send the lot there."] I did not take in what seemed to me so far a rather silly point, but there are advantages in having a Minister in the House of Lords who can spend a great part of his time in Wales and not be perpetually forced to be in attendance on our debates in order to make sure that the Opposition can express their hatred of Government legislation.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the softness that the Prime Minister has in his heart for the House of Lords, and in view of the happenings of the past two days in this House, would he consider elevating the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip to the House of Lords?

The Prime Minister: As to softness for the other place, I have not yet looked up the figures, but I will do so, of the number of Peers created by the present Leader of the Opposition and of those for whom I have at any time been responsible. As to the suggestion, which I see put about in the newspapers, that there is a lack of confidence in our Chief Whip or in the present Leader of the House of Commons, I want to say that it is absolute nonsense, and the more the episode which occurred yesterday develops the more what I might call the Mau Mau will regret the folly of their actions.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. Is not the Mau Mau a proscribed organisation, Sir? Therefore, is that the way to refer to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: There was so much noise that I could not hear to what the right hon. Gentleman referred.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House a question with regard to the business for today? I notice that there is a Motion on the Order Paper dealing with Stautory Instruments. Is it intended to take all the matters referred to in that Motion and the Defence Regulations within one day?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. Yesterday I gave notice that after the Iron and Steel Bill and the Money Resolution, we would proceed to the business already announced for that day. What is on the Order Paper is that business.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no precedent for trying to make the House of Commons take two days' business in one day solely due to the incompetence of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip? We had a precedent referred to by you, Mr. Speaker, in which time was lost through grave disorder. At that time, Mr. Asquith did not thereupon try to make the House do two days' work in one day, although that was due to the Conservative Party shouting down the Liberals—I think throwing a book at the present Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: That has nothing to do with the particular case.

Mr. Attlee: It was another instance of the disorderly habits of the Conservative Party. It is really monstrous, when we have had time given for two days, and time is lost purely through the fault of the Government. You can read on that, Sir, the statements of Prime Ministers of both parties, in which it has been laid down over and over again that it is the duty of the Government to keep a House. The Government failed in their elementary duty on a major Bill, and it is absolutely monstrous that the House should be asked to sit till any hour to deal with very important matters. The matter which I referred to, the Defence (General) Regulations, has been explained to us over and over again by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as a matter of the first importance to try to carry out

the Prime Minister's idea of setting the people free. Has the right hon. Gentleman any precedent for an action of this kind when a Government has made a grave fault and tries to put all the blame on the rest of the House?

Mr. Crookshank: Whether or not there is a precedent for this particular case, the Government desire to get this business, and the Defence Regulations must be passed by this House this week.

Mr. Attlee: There is Monday. There is no special urgency for the business put down on Monday. I understand it is not urgent or necessary business.

Mr. Crookshank: But the Defence Regulations must be got through this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] In order that they may become effective. That really is the case and that is why I repeat that statement.

Mr. Attlee: This is just another instance of mishandling the business of the House. We all know there is essential business that has to be got through by a certain time, but it is quite unnecessary for the Government to have put down two Bills, one of which the Government supporters care for so little that they cannot even stay. It is obviously a matter of sheer incompetence in the handling of the business of the House.

Mr. Crookshank: There were quite other reasons. The presence of only four Socialists is one of them.

Mr. Attlee: That is the first time a Leader of the House has tried to excuse his failure to keep a House by trying to suggest that other Members were not present. In view of the treatment meted out to the House by the Government, I shall be obliged to put a Motion of Censure on the Order Paper.

Mr. Simmons: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I should like to have your guidance. The occupant of your high office has always in the history of this House been the guardian of the rights and the privileges of private Members. The business for tomorrow, by Resolution of this House, was reserved for private Members. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give us any guidance to prevent the rights and privileges of private Members from being infringed by the Government because of their own incompetence?

Mr. Colegate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you remember that once I had a Private Member's Bill on a Friday and, owing to the Labour Government carrying on the debate until 20 minutes past 12 o'clock on the Friday from the previous day, the Bill had to be postponed?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the point of order, of course if the House finishes its business in time, there is no reason why the Private Member's Bill should not be taken.

Mr. Crookshank: May I say on that point, that the only intention of the Government is to get Government business. That is our first thought. There is plenty of time to cope with that long before there is any question of Friday's business.

Mr. J. T. Price: Mr. J. T. Price rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order?

Mr. Price: On a point of order, Sir. Is it in order for a leading Member of the Government, particularly the Leader of the House, whose duties extend to these benches as well as to those benches, to abuse his post by taking part in a common act of revenge for something that happened yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see any point of order in that, and I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has given notice of a Motion of censure upon this matter. Therefore, these matters can be considered at that time.

Mr. Bing: Mr. Bing rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

Mr. Bing: No, Sir. I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to address a question to the Leader of the House with regard to tonight's business? Have I your permission?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Bing: Would not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more frank with the House and say, first, that the Defence Regulations have only to be passed by 10th December and that the only reason

for hurry is that certain of his hon. Friends who are Privy Councillors have made arrangements that make that difficult, and have thus abused their office? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put down so much business as to compel a matter that deals with the Press to be cut out, does he not consider that the more honest course would be to put down a Motion to suspend Private Members' time for tomorrow and thus give hon. Members who have some knowledge of the matter an opportunity of discussing the motives which have led some hon. Members opposite to decide to prolong the debate to such a stage that matters relating to their friends of the Press cannot be discussed?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is a serious charge.

Mr. Crookshank: There is really no need to anticipate any of those things occurring. There is no necessity for this debate to go on until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning by any manner of means.
Regarding the Regulations, I assure the hon. and learned Member—I hope he will take it from me—that in fact next Thursday is the last effective day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, first, the other place is not discussing these Orders until it has seen what Amendments we may make in them. Second, after they have been passed by Order in Council, there have to be certain days—purely mechanical days—in order that they may be printed and all the rest of it, so as to become effective within the statutory limit. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have looked into this matter very carefully after certain representations were made to me yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman, and I found that we had to deal with and complete this business this week.

Mr. H. Morrison: In the circumstances, in the light of all these arguments, is not the remedy perfectly simple: namely, that there is no urgency about the Iron and Steel Bill?

The Prime Minister: You did not turn up.

Mr. Morrison: It is not a question of our turning up. The Prime Minister ought to know by now that it is up to the


Government Whips and the Leader of the House to protect Government business. I am sure that by now he has told the Chief Whip what his job is. May I ask the Leader of the House: Is not the simple thing to hold over the Iron and Steel Bill for the moment—there is no date with regard to it, as there is with the other items—and let us go about the business that was to have been gone about as intended last week?

Mr. Crookshank: Of course, that would be an alternative way of proceeding. It is not the way in which I advise the House to go.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

Mr. Wigg: Yes, Sir. Several times in discussions in the House there have been references to the number of my hon. Friends who were present when the House was counted out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] As I am the only person who knows how many Members of the Labour Party were in the House, may I say that the number was nearer 100 than four?

Mr. Speaker: That most certainly is not a point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman: I desire, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, to return to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), who is the promoter of a Private Member's Bill for tomorrow. He put to you as a point of order the question whether Private Member's time ought not to be protected and whether it was not being jeopardised by the method proposed. Before you could give any Ruling on that matter, the Leader of the House said that he had no desire to impinge upon Private Members' time and that all he desired was to get Government business.
In view of the fact that the Government's failure to get their business has been due to their neglect to keep sufficient of a House in order to enable them to get their business, and that that was no fault of any private Members, and certainly no fault of my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill, is it not clear that no answer has been given so far to the point which my hon. Friend made?

Mr. Speaker: I answered the point of order of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) by saying that there was no reason why we should not reach his Bill in time, and that if it is reached in time, it will be taken. To act otherwise would require an amendment of the Standing Orders, and I am not empowered to do that.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order. Is it not, therefore, the case that as the Government have put down so much business on the Order Paper for today, the only way in which my hon. Friend's Bill can be protected is by the Opposition giving up their opposition rights?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Silverman: Further to the point of order. You have said, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the point, that there is no reason why Private Members' time tomorrow should be lost provided the House of Commons does in one day the business which the House, under the guidance of the Leader of the House, has already decided is the business for two days; that is to say, that Private Members' business can be reached tomorrow only at the expense of neglecting public business in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that follows. It may mean a prolonged Sitting tonight. That is all that I say.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a rather serious matter. I am sure you would like to reconsider what you said, because what you actually said was that in your view there was no reason why the business could not be all carried through and still leave tomorrow's Sitting intact, which really means that what Mr. Speaker is saying is that the House of Commons should carry in one day's Sitting what was intended for two days.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot have that said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of anything. The Standing Orders normally provide that the Sitting of the House should stop at 10 o'clock, and business is then interrupted. What we have on the Order Paper is a Motion to exempt certain business, and the business of the


Regulations is exempted business. What I mean is that there may be an equal time at night when normally we should not be doing business at all.

Mr. Bevan: This is really a rather serious matter. With all respect, the House of Commons in its conduct of business can easily be put in a very great difficulty. The informality of the House can only be maintained if we have certain definite rules and understandings; and the Chair, towards the early hours of the morning, will find itself put in a very great difficulty in maintaining the order of the House if there is a grave sense of injustice on this side.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is frequently placed in a position of great difficulty, but I shall endeavour to surmount any difficulty to the best of my ability.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

Mr. Silverman: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: A real one?

Mr. Silverman: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider the point that I have to make a substantial one, otherwise I should not have presumed to raise it.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), you said that the business normally finishes at 10 o'clock and that, therefore, there is no necessary hardship involved or loss of time tomorrow, because the extra business put down will be taken, if this Motion is carried, after 10 o'clock. I submit to you with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that that opinion was based on a fallacy. The business that the Leader of the House advises the House to take today is business that normally does not stop at 10 o'clock; it is the business of Defence Regulations by Prayer, which is exempt from the Standing Order which says that we must stop at 10 o'clock.
Therefore, I submit to you with respect that my right hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that we were being asked to do the business already allotted for two days of Parliamentary time in one day's Parliamentary time, unless we are prepared to sacrifice the rights of private Members.

Mr. Speaker: I did state that this was exempted business; I was quite aware of that, but what I was trying to express was that by sitting late we can do work which would normally take two normal days. That is all I am saying and these points of order, although they are very interesting, are not really points for me at all. The House must protect itself on these matters.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS. "Oh."] If I may venture to say so, it is a real point of order. It has been the custom of Speakers in this House not only to rule on order, but to give advice to the House. Indeed, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, yesterday quoted advice given to the House, even though it was not a point of order.
This House is presented with a position in which four Orders of the Day are set down as exempted business Before three of those Orders of the Day can be entered upon, including the Second Reading of a very important Bill, the House have to dispose of a Motion for an Address to the Crown upon which there are 70 Amendments. It is quite impossible for the House to deal with that business adequately in less than two days.
If the House decides to do away with Private Members' time, of course it is open to the House so to do, but I do suggest to you that it is your duty to say to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in my respectful submission, it is your duty to say to the House—that in these circumstances there should be a Motion moved to suspend Private Members' business if that in fact is the intention of hon. Members opposite. Otherwise, unless there is an undertaking given that the House is to be adjourned prior to the hour for Private Members' business being entered upon, in my respectful submission this Motion is an abuse of the process of the House, and it is the duty of anyone presiding over the House to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker: This has happened before on many occasions and none of my predecessors has thought it his duty to intervene in that way. I should be making a new precedent if I did so.
Does the Leader of the Opposition wish now to ask the question about next week's business?

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir, the business for next week will be as follows:

On MONDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Second Reading:

Town and Country Planning Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

On TUESDAY, 2ND DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages:

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

On WEDNESDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—Second Reading:

Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Motion to approve:

Draft Civil Defence (Billeting) Regulations.

On THURSDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Committee stage:

Transport Bill. [1st Allotted Day.]

On FRIDAY, 5TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.

In the early part of the week we shall ask the House to approve the report from the Business Committee relating to the Time-table for the Committee stage of the Transport Bill.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask about the Town and Country Planning Bill? This is a very important matter, dealing with a very big subject, on which there was a great deal of discussion of the original Bill and, therefore, there ought to be more than one day on this Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the general view that the Bill involves the rights of a large number of people and that it could be taken on two days at a later stage. That would set us free.

Mr. Crookshank: The Government have considered representations made by the right hon. Gentleman and we think that, as this is not the final Bill—there is to be another Bill subsequently—one day on this Second Reading would be sufficient time for it to be debated.

Mr. Dalton: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the White Paper issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government? As paragraph 57 says:
Owing to the Government's desire to allow plenty of time for discussion of their proposals and to the need for examination of the technical difficulties inherent in them …
would it not be a good thing to begin that discussion with a period of two days rather than one?

Mr. Crookshank: That is a matter of opinion.

Sir E. Keeling: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will consider giving time to the Motion on the Order Paper condemning the practice of raising false points of order? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last complete month in which the House sat no fewer than 42 alleged points of order were ruled by the Chair not to be points of order?

Mr. Crookshank: I was not aware of those figures, but I do not see a chance of an early debate on this subject.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. Are not the question of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling), and the Motion to which it refers, impinging on the prerogative of the Chair, which has the sole right of deciding points of order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not recall the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Leader of the House what disciplinary action he contemplates taking against members of his own party who failed to keep a House the other night?

Mr. Lindgren: Further to the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for two days' debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill, does the Leader of the House not admit that the essence of town planning is that of compensation and betterment? While it is true that this Bill deals only with one portion—that of deferring the development charge—and the Government promise legislation in regard to betterment, effective means of planning will be denied to local authorities. Therefore, ought we not to have two days in which to discuss the Bill so that the points of view expressed in the House could be considered for future legislation?

Mr. Crookshank: That, of course, is the object of the Second Reading debate on the Bill. The hon. Member seems to be making some of the points which, no doubt, he will wish to make on Monday.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I should like to ask the Leader of the House when the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1952, will be before the House for approval and when they will be debated?

Mr. Crookshank: I have not announced that for next week.

Mr. Lever: The matter has been on the Order Paper for some time and we should like to know.

Mr. Callaghan: Why have the Government chosen Thursday—the day on which our proceedings are always delayed—to start the Transport Bill, which is subject to a severe Guillotine? Will they not reconsider that and transfer the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is broadly non-contentious, to Thursday and give a full day to the Transport Bill, seeing that we are subject to a heavy Guillotine in Committee?

Mr. Crookshank: I think the hon. Member is a member of the Business Committee where these matters are being discussed, but, of course, the Order of the House, which I explained the other day, did give half an hour's tolerance compared with the normal routine. Although the hon. Member makes the suggestion that the Bill should come forward to Wednesday, I think perhaps the House would want one day more in which to discuss the Bill and put down Amendments.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would suit us equally well if the Bill went back to the following week? I make a serious point: is it not the case that from today's proceedings we are liable to eat into the time for our proceedings on Thursday and did not the Leader of the House say he hoped to avoid Thursday on the Transport Bill in order that we should not have our very limited time taken in this way?

Mr. Crookshank: I was only trying to meet the convenience of the House about

giving more time before starting the Committee stage. If the hon. Member feels strongly about this I am not averse to looking at the matter again through the usual channels. But he will realise that it would cut into the interval and I tried to give as much time as possible between Second Reading and Committee stage. We try to be as reasonable as we can.

Dr. Broughton: Will the Leader of the House allow time next week for a short debate on the Motion standing in my name, and the names of hon. Members on both sides of the House, relating to clean food?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not see any prospect of being able to give time to that. The hon. Member knows that we are in the period when hon. Members ballot for Motions for Private Members' Day, and that subject might perhaps be suitable for that.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect to debate the Guillotine on the Iron and Steel Bill, as the absence of that Motion from next week's business is causing a certain amount of anxiety among his hon. Friends, who are nervous that, not knowing when Divisions may take place, the Bill may be defeated owing to the apathy of his hon. Friends?

Mr. MacColl: Reverting to Monday's business, may I reinforce what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said about the Town and Country Planning Bill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible to discuss that Bill except in the context of the White Paper which the Government themselves say requires very careful and detailed discussion? If we pass the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday, with just a few people being able to take part in the debate, major decisions affecting the whole of the planning of the country will have been decided because compensation will have been withheld from people who, under the present law, are entitled to receive it. Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider giving another day and putting the Bill back for further consideration?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I think that one day will have to suffice.

KOREA (UNITED NATIONS DISCUSSIONS)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to give some account of the discussions which are proceeding at the Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York, from which I have just returned.
These discussions have been dominated by the problem of Korea. As the House will be aware, the one unresolved question which still holds up armistice negotiations at Panmunjom is that of the prisoners of war. In a speech to the General Assembly on 11th November, I sought to define this issue and to suggest a basis on which it could be settled.
I set out four principles which I thought should govern our conduct. These were: first, that every prisoner of war has the right, on the conclusion of an armistice, to be released. Second, that every prisoner of war has the right to be speedily repatriated. Third, that there is a duty on the detaining side to provide facilities for such repatriation. Fourth, that the detaining side has no right to use force in connection with the disposal of prisoners of war; in other words, after an armistice a prisoner of war may not be either forcibly detained or forcibly repatriated. These four principles found general acceptance in the Assembly.
In the course of the Session, several resolutions have been submitted. One of these was sponsored by 21 Powers, including the United Kingdom, the United States and certain Commonwealth countries. A subsequent resolution submitted by the Indian Delegation, while taking full account, as Mr. Krishna Menon made plain, of the four principles I had mentioned, also set out a new proposal for a Repatriation Commission to deal with the problem of the prisoners of war after an armistice. This Commission was to consist of four countries which are not taking part in the fighting in Korea, together with an umpire, who was to have the decisive voice when the members were unable to agree.
As I indicated at the opening of the discussion the next day, the Indian initia-

tive was in our view a timely and constructive attempt to resolve the deadlock. The test which I applied was whether this resolution brought us nearer to an armistice. As I made clear to the Political Committee, in my view it did, and although bitter experience has taught us the uncertainties which attend on any negotiations with the Communists, I felt that here was a chance which should not be missed. The Indian draft fully embodied our principles. It was an initiative worked out with much care and thought by an Asian country, the sincerity of whose purpose could not be doubted.
It was encouraging during our discussions to note the wide support which the Indian resolution commanded from other Asian countries. As the House will know, discussions on this question are still proceeding in the Assembly, or rather in its First Committee. I am, however, confident that the overwhelming majority of the United Nations will be able to agree on the Indian text, perhaps with some minor clarifications which do not affect its principles.
The House will perhaps have seen reports in the Press of divergencies on this subject between the United Kingdom and the United States delegations. I should like to put these reports in their correct perspective. There was never any difference between us, or indeed among the free nations as a whole, on the underlying principles which I set out in my speech, and which I have just quoted to the House. But a number of informal discussions were held between the United Kingdom, the United States and other delegations on how these principles should be defined, especially in relation to the final disposal of Communist prisoners of war who do not go back. On this we felt that the clarification which the representative of India himself put forward on 23rd November went very far indeed to meet any anxieties that might be felt.
In this connection the House will, of course, be fully mindful of the special responsibilities which the United States carry in Korea, and which the United Nations Command has faithfully discharged on behalf of all the Governments concerned. I have every confidence that any difficulties of definition will soon be overcome. In the discussions which are still continuing, Her Majesty's Government are represented by the Minister of


State who, by his patient and thorough diplomacy, has won for himself a position of exceptional authority amongst his colleagues.
It is right that I should add a tribute to the Indian delegation and to Mr. Krishna Menon in particular for their wise statesmanship. I should also record that in all these difficult days of negotiation—and they were sometimes difficult—the countries of the Commonwealth worked in close consultation and agreement. I have particular reason to be grateful to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, Mr. Pearson, who is also President of the General Assembly.
There is, I am sure, a widespread conviction in the Assembly and in this House that it would be wrong to risk losing this chance of bringing the fighting in Korea to an end. Unhappily the recent intervention of the Soviet representative in the debate, whatever its motive, shows that the chance has become a slender one. Nevertheless, we must persevere with this endeavour. We are now told that the Chinese Government have raised objections to the Indian proposals. We can only hope that these objections may not be as final as Mr. Vyshinsky was so eager to represent them as being. As I see it, our best course is still to support the Indian resolution and to invite the United Nations to transmit it to the Chinese and the North Koreans.

Mr. H. Morrison: The House generally will welcome the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It fell to me to take the course with a view to the encouragement of armistice talks to take place, and I must say I am bitterly disappointed that they should have taken so long.
I think there will be general agreement that the four principles to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred are reasonable, tolerant and rational, and that they ought to be acceptable. I am very glad, as I am sure we all are, that there has been cordial co-operation between us and other Commonwealth countries, and in particular with the great Asian country of India, which should be exceedingly valuable in view of the nature of this dispute. I should like to say how pleased we are that this has taken place.
There is one point on which I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. There was a subsequent reso-

lution put in by the Indian delegation with regard to the Repatriation Commission. I was clear that the right hon. Gentleman endorsed the general lines of the first Indian resolution. May we take it that he is sympathetic to the second resolution, as to the possibility of setting up a Repatriation Commission subsequent to the armistice announcement?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is that in my own speech I made two suggestions for clarification, one of which concerned the umpire of the Repatriation Commission. That is what I think the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The other was for a certain clarification in respect of prisoners of war who do not want to go back. That was, I think, an amendment, or rather, not an amendment but a clarification, by the Indian delegation of their own resolution. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, we were most certainly in agreement with it.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks of modified representations that may be made to the Chinese People's Government and to the North Korean Government, whether it is intended that those representations, if any—I am speaking of possible modified representations—should be made through the Indian Government or direct by the United Nations?

Mr. Eden: I hoped that the United Nations would approve the Indian resolution, possibly with some clarification, and then would transmit it to the Chinese Government and the North Korean authorities—

Mr. Shinwell: The United Nations?

Mr. Eden: Yes, the United Nations. I think they would have to do so, because it clearly becomes their resolution. The actual channels they use would be for them to decide. I have no fixed opinion about that.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one could attach considerable importance to the method of representation? If the United Nations make representations of the kind indicated to the Chinese People's Government, that appears to be a new situation, and perhaps a very welcome one. Do I understand


that the right hon. Gentleman regards it in that light?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. What I hope will hang on this is that the United Nations will agree on the resolution and will also agree to transmit it to the Chinese Government.

Mr. Donnelly: Does not the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and the nature of Mr. Vyshinsky's flat rejection of the proposals, show the extreme difficulty of negotiation with the Chinese Government until they are represented in the United Nations? Does it not also show that until that happens we have to deal second-hand with them through Moscow to some extent; and would the right hon. Gentleman consider pressing yet again the vital necessity of seeing that China is represented in the United Nations?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as, or better than, I do how many questions this raises. I would only say that I do not think it would be very helpful to raise this at present. There are methods of getting into contact with the Chinese Government in other ways than through Moscow, and sometimes I wonder whether Moscow's eagerness to continue this war is because the Chinese are doing the fighting for them.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Without necessarily raising the question of a permanent delegation of the Chinese to the United Nations, but to save time and possibly to make it easier to reach agreement, would it not be better to ask representatives of the Chinese People's Government, and perhaps the North Koreans, to come to discuss this resolution, rather than to submit it to them through other channels?

Mr. Eden: Even if we can get agreement on this resolution and transmit it to them, it is only a possible basis for a truce on this one item, the prisoners of war, which will then have to be finally agreed at Panmunjom. We are only dealing here with one stage in these negotiations, though I admit it would be a considerable advance if we could resolve it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While I am sure anybody who has been at the Assembly when the Minister of State has been there will recognise that he is in a very

good position among his colleagues, may I, in view of the tremendous issues that hang on this, urge the Foreign Secretary to continue to give this matter his close personal attention; and if it would serve a useful purpose, to go back to the Assembly himself?

Mr. Eden: I think I can certainly give that undertaking.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is personally satisfied and can assure the House that the proposed modifications in the Indian resolution are really only clarifications of details, and do not in any way impinge on the principles of the resolution as originally tabled?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; I think so. If the hon. Gentleman will look—or perhaps he has already looked—at the original speech of the spokesman of the Indian delegation, and the text as now clarified, I think he will find they are closely allied; and I am encouraged in that thought by the fact that the Soviet delegate, who seemed to think of as many objections as he could to this Indian resolution, did not think of that one.

Mr. Usborne: While we are obviously very pleased to hear that there is at long last a chance of obtaining an armistice, let us suppose there are difficulties over the question of the prisoners and that we break down on that; would the Foreign Secretary consider seriously whether it might be possible at least to obtain some terms for a cease-fire, as many of us feel that if we cannot agree on the prisoner problem, it is silly to go on getting more prisoners.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware of the argument against that course and the difficulties in which we might well find ourselves were we to agree to a cease-fire without any arrangement for the return of our prisoners and the consequences that that might entail. I have discussed that before, and I would not willingly modify what I have said to the House on that subject.

Sir W. Smithers: I, for one, cannot be silent and let this discussion pass without paying a sincere tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for all the splendid work he has done.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that it would probably save time and lives if, instead of this communicating through other than direct channels, the Security Council of the United Nations were to invite a delegation of the Chinese People's Republic to their meeting to discuss the terms of a possible armistice and the repatriation of prisoners, instead of arranging it through the technique of Notes?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, because if these arrangements can be agreed on at all, the final discussion must take place between the Chinese and United Nations representatives at Panmunjom. It is there, and only there, that the final settlement can be signed and arrived at. So I do not think the disadvantages

which the hon. Gentleman sees in the present procedure are as great as he thinks. Nor do I think they could be overcome without the greatest possible difficulty in the United Nations, which might land us in more trouble than we are in already.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings of the Committee on Iron and Steel [Money], on the Civil Contingencies Fund Bill, the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Bill and the Colonial Loans Bill and on the Motions relating to Statutory Instruments be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 255.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[4.20 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimond, J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Colegate, W. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harden, J. R. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hay, John


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Cuthbert, W. N.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Baxter, A. B.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Heath, Edward


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Deedes, W. F.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Donner, P. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Drayson, G. B.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hollis, M. C.


Birch, Nigel
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bishop, F. P.
Duthie, W. S.
Holt, A. F.


Black, C. W.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hope, Lord John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Bossom, A. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Horobin, I. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fell, A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Braine, B. R.
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fort, R.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Foster, John
Hurd, A. R.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gammans, L. D.
Hylton Foster, H. B. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Butcher, H. W.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Jennings, R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Campbell, Sir David
Godber, J. B.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Carson, Hon. E.
Gough, C. F. H.
Kaberry, D.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, H. R.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Channon, H.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lambert, Hon. G.




Lambton, Viscount
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Snadden, W. McN.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Speir, R. M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Legh, P. R. (Peterfield)
Oakshott, H. D.
Stevens, G. P.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Odey, G. W.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lindsay, Martin
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Linstead, H. N.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Storey, S.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Studholme, H. G.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Osborne, C.
Summers, G. S.


Longden, Gilbert
Partridge, E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Low, A. R. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Teeling, W.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McAdden, S. J.
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McCallum, Major D.
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tilney, John


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Profumo, J. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


McKibbin, A. J.
Raikes, H. V.
Turton, R. H.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Redmayne, M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wade, D. W.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Robertson, Sir David
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Robson-Brown, W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Marples, A. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Watkinson, H. A.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Russell, R. S.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Maude, Angus
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Maudling, R.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mellor, Sir John
Scott, R. Donald
Wills, G.


Molson, A. H. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Shepherd, William
Wood, Hon. R.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
York, C.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)



Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholls, Harmar
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Mr. Drewe and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Burton, Miss F. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Albu, A. H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edelman, M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ewart, R.


Balfour, A.
Clunie, J.
Fernyhough, E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Coldrick, W.
Field, W. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collick, P. H.
Fienburgh, W.


Bence, C. R.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Finch, H. J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Follick, M.


Benson, G.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Foot, M. M.


Beswick, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Forman, J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Daines, P.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Blackburn, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Blenkinsop, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gibson, C. W.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Glanville, James


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bowles, F. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Deer, G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Delargy, H. J.
Grey, C. F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Donnelly, D. L.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)







Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Snow, J. W.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Mikardo, Ian
Steele, T.


Hargreaves, A.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Monslow, W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Morley, R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Swingler, S. T.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holman, P.
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Houghton, Douglas
Nally, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hubbard, T. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Padley, W. E.
Timmons, J.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Tomney, F.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Usborne, H. C.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles
Viant, S. P.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wallace, H. W.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Poole, C. C.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Porter, G.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
West, D. G.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Keenan, W.
Rankin, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wigg, George


King, Dr. H. M.




Kinley, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willey, F. T.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lewis, Arthur
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Royle, C.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Logan, D. G.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


MacColl, J. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McInnes, J.
Short, E. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Yates, V. F.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mann, Mrs. Jean.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Hannan.


Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Sandys.]

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Freeman: I rise to pursue the somewhat chequered course of the debate on the Government's Iron and Steel Bill. I cannot help admitting to a certain feeling, which some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite will certainly share, of mixed irony and nostalgia as I stand at this Box, very much as a "country member," to debate once more the proposed nationalisation or de-nationalisation of iron and steel.
I do not expect that anybody can stand at this Box without feeling certain qualms about what is to take place, but I am comforted by the reflection that I can hardly say less than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply, who moved the Second Reading in another debate two days ago, and secondly—and in a sense this is much more important—by the further reflection that it can hardly be necessary to say more than was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss).
The Minister of Supply based his advocacy of this Bill on the following propositions. He said:
This Bill has two main objectives. The first is to establish a comprehensive system of public supervision embracing the whole iron and steel industry, and so bring to an end the extremely harmful split created by the 1949 Act. The second is to restore independence, initiative and financial responsibility to the companies and so ensure that they have the strongest possible incentives to produce as cheaply and efficiently as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 266.]
Thirdly, not as one of his essential propositions, but as a point on which he laid great emphasis during the course of his speech, he said:
Public ownership is, I submit to the House, the most unpractical and the most cumbersome method of exercising public control that has ever been devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 269.]

I should like to comment on these propositions, because, in so far as the Minister's speech had any content, it seemed to me that it was based upon them.
What is the position now? Broadly speaking, it is this. There is a single central point of control in the industry, that is to say, ownership, over about 95 per cent. of the steel producing capacity, and that means, effectively, a control over the whole industry. That control, though there may be political objections to it, is administratively a control of the simplest possible kind; that is to say, ownership. It is clearly defined, and it is, within statutory limits, absolute, and there is no doubt about it. Everybody knows exactly where he stands. Policy can be laid down with a long view and be implemented. The public interest, which naturally in the statute is undefined, is, in fact, supreme.
Over the Corporation—which is the owner of the shares and which is the central point of control—is the Minister. His task, again broadly speaking, is to referee between the Corporation and the private sector, to fix prices, and, above all, to establish for the Corporation what the public interest is, either, conceivably, and in certain circumstances, by direction or, more usually and probably, by liaison.
The Minister seemed to me in his speech two days ago to complain about the difficulty of his position, theoretically. I agree that the precise way in which the Minister will influence the Corporation in determining the public interest can be said to be open to theoretical difficulty, but, in fact, it is not so. We never found it so, and I do not believe that the present Minister has found it so. Where there is a difficulty is if we have an outside power like Steel House seeking to obstruct the Corporation, but if we do not have that, there is simply no difficulty; and I affirm this not without experience of the problem of the relations between the Minister and the Corporation.
I claim that, as a piece of organisation, administratively that is a simple system, and that, if we are going to substitute for it something else, it must be something very good. What, in fact, are we offered in place of the present system? First of all, a dispersal of


ownership, so that perhaps half the publicly-owned sector of the industry will revert to private ownership, while the other half remains, as the Minister admits, for the time being at least, in public ownership. On that point, perhaps the Minister has read, though others may not have done so, the comment on the probability of a quick sale of the public companies in the leading article in yesterday's "Financial Times." This leading article, after a brief, personal and, I think, rather offensive reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, which I am not going to read because it is totally irrelevant to the point I am making, goes on to say:
On the other hand, Mr. Sandys himself is making but an uneasy defence of an uncertain measure. He must by now be only too acutely aware that he is proposing a Bill to sell the steel industry when there are few signs that many want to buy it.
That is what the "Financial Times" said, and no doubt the Minister will also have seen the remarks of the Chairman of the Staveley Coal and Iron Company, who gave his shareholders no assurance that his company was proposing to buy back its shares—indeed, his remarks make it seem a very unlikely eventuality.
The first effect of this Bill will be to remove the central point of control over 95 per cent. of steel-producing capacity; and we are asked to set up, in place of that control, a different system in which we shall have the present private sector, plus the potentially profitable part of the public sector, in private ownership, and the remainder of the public sector in public ownership.
We shall, by that means, split the industry far more seriously into two than it is at the moment, and what on earth happens to the Minister's avowed object of ending the "extremely harmful split" which he alleges exists at the present moment? When we have that ugly and untidy situation, the ownership of the public sector is now going to be vested—I should say with considerable consequent difficulty—in an agency of Treasury receivers. The task of that agency will be to sell it as quickly as possible.
What sort of people are these receivers going to be? Are they officials of the Treasury, or people capable of running the industry, because, so far as I can

make out, they will have to spend quite a long time in charge of some of it. What is to happen to the receivers? How are they going to match their judgments and decisions with the needs of steel production, when they have a statutory duty to sell the industry back to the private sector as quickly as possible?
What is going to happen—this is perhaps the most important question of all—when, for at least some considerable sector of the industry, no bidders come forward? Is the agency to remain permanently in control of this sector? Is the Ministry of Supply going to run it, in much the same way as they run the Royal Ordnance Factories? High as is my regard for these factories, I do not think that is the right kind of organisation for this industry. We ought to have from the Minister some indication of his views on this problem, because we have not had it so far, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, for whom we all have a high regard, will be able to clear up these points.
Side by side with this agency of receivers, which is going to sell the publicly-owned industry, and over the private sector of industry, a far wider range of the private sector than we thought necessary when we nationalised, sits the new Board. The duty of that Board, which is set out in words that at least are quite clear in the Bill, is to supervise. But it has not got adequate powers to do so; nor has it adequate responsibility. This Board, as far as one can deduce from reading the Bill, is totally unequipped to carry out its job of supervision, if that is meant to be any more than a sham.
It has no effective power to prepare or to carry out any effective raw material plan. In so far as it has powers—and on my reading of the Bill it has certain powers in raw material matters—it can only bring them into play once the need becomes urgent and inescapable, and it will then be too late. Yet this is absolutely vital. This is the most urgent deficiency which the Corporation itself discovered when it took over the industry, and any plan which does not allow for effective public control in the matter of raw material purchases and supply is a plan doomed to failure from the start. It is supposed to stimulate development. Yet it has no power whatever to ensure any kind of compre-


hensive development plan. It can do nothing in this field except veto, and even there it can veto only a major investment, when it conceives it to be against the public interest.
The Board cannot carry out the work, which I think every sensible person examining this industry feels ought to be done, of regrouping it, in places and where necessary, into more highly integrated units. It cannot undertake investment which seems socially or, indeed, in the broadest sense, economically desirable, but which is not profitable to particular private interests; and, in so far as the power of veto which the Board has applies only to the biggest projects, which may change the whole balance of the industry, it may very well have the effect of stimulating and encouraging a lot of minor discursive investment at the expense of integration. That, I should think, everybody would agree is diametrically the wrong trend at the moment.
There is another point. The Board has no power, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) hinted the other day, to exercise authority in the field of marketing arrangements—at least, I cannot find it. It cannot, as far as I read the powers given to it under the Bill, veto a marketing plan, and this is very important.
There is sometimes a lot of argument in this House about whether my hon. Friends on this side are right or wrong in bringing up the pre-war record of this industry. Steel masters in recent years have not worried very much about over production. They did not worry during the days of the Labour Government when we had a buoyant and somewhat inflated economy. Of course they have not worried because, for once, the interests of the steel masters and of the national economy marched exactly side by side.
It has been profitable to be patriotic. But the old restrictive attitude is no doubt still there. Indeed, their very language is already beginning to change, now we have a Tory Government who, to some extent, are deflating the economy. The hon. Member for Aylesbury the other day spoke almost longingly about the Schuman Plan. He described the cartel arrangements of the past with continental producers, in almost caressing terms.
Of course, what is likely to happen now is that the steel interests of this country will become more and more interested in re-entering the same sort of cartel arrangements with the units which go to make up the Schuman pool as they did before the war. Supposing that is so, and supposing they seek to enter into a restrictive cartel and supposing—here I will give the right hon. Gentleman opposite something—that happened to conflict with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends who think that the Chancellor is seeking intentionally to ride this country into a slump economy. What I think he is trying to do is to let unemployment increase to 800,000 or 900,000 and to hold it there. If so, we could easily have a case where a major investment industry of this kind came into sharp conflict with the policy of a Chancellor was was seeking to do just that.
What are the Government going to do? They can give a direction to the Board, but the Board has no power whatever to impose its policy on the industry if this Bill is passed. One cannot veto such a cartel if it happens to be against Government policy and if the industry decide to carry it out. It is an ironical point. For when the Minister of Supply advocated, as I remember he did in the earliest days, full membership for this country of the Schuman pool in its original conception, he must have envisaged full Government control over the industry in this respect. But the very Bill he produces today does not do that.
The power which the Board does possess is the power to fix prices, and I doubt very much whether it should have that power. It is a debatable point now, just as it was arguable in the case of the Corporation itself. I am inclined to the view that in the public interest the Minister cannot evade this responsibility. Two days ago the Minister appeared to suggest that this was a duty which as a routine matter he found onerous and intolerable. I can only suggest to him that if the present Minister cannot accept the duty, hon. Members could find one, even from the benches opposite, who can.
But even in the matter of price control there is some confusion. Under the Bill, the Board certainly has certain power to obtain information from producers, but


it has no power to obtain information from purchasers of iron and steel products, from metal merchants, from importers of raw materials, from trade associations, and not even from the Federation itself which controls the two great importing agencies. And now at the first whiff of grape shot from the foundries the Minister talks about limiting the powers he has taken for price fixing. What a commentary that is on the substance of the whole of his plan.
It is perhaps a small point—though I am sure worth mentioning—but could anybody in his senses, even if he sat up all night trying to think of it, devise a more ridiculous way of enforcing price control than by the process of injunction such as appears to be contemplated in the Bill? It would mean, presumably, that a Chancery judge would have to be brought back from his holidays every time a steel company is thought to be overcharging. What a fantastic scheme.
I do not envy this Board at all, and indeed, I doubt very much, if it comes to be set up, whether anyone will be found to serve on it except men of straw and possibly a cadre of intriguers from Steel House. This is a perfect example—if I may turn Lord Baldwin's famous dictum the other way round—of responsibility without power. And if we can follow Lord Baldwin's somewhat sordid analogy, I suppose that is the prerogative of the eunuch.
In one respect at least this Board is to have power. It can raise a levy in order to meet its costs, to cover imports, research, its own salaries and its own administrative expenses. But what is more, it can levy also—and I do not think the Minister qualified this in his speech the other day—not only from that sector of the industry which is at present under public ownership, but from all over the 2,400 companies described in the Third Schedule of this Bill.
I do not suppose that the foundry men or the people who share the views of Sir Alfred Herbert are particularly keen on paying the levy to meet the salaries of the Board. But the important factor here is imports. In my judgment the Board have not been given adequate powers to follow a successful or constructive policy of imports. The Board may from time to time itself have to undertake imports.
They may very easily—and it would be no reflection on the personalities of the Board if this happened in the present state of world markets—make a grave financial miscalculation. When that happens the only way in which the Board can recover their losses is by levying on the industry. One may have a situation when a levy will be needed on 2,400 firms because of the miscalculation of a body who have no financial responsibility for those companies, a levy of who knows how much—perhaps £1, £2, £3 or even more per ton.
There, if I might once again quote Lord Baldwin, is the more orthodox picture of power without responsibility—the harlot. The Board have no financial responsibility for these companies and the Board may very well involve them in expenditure which will mean a substantial levy. In one half of their ditties the Board have responsibility without power and in the other half power without responsibility; and if any logician on the benches opposite seeks to suggest that these two definitions cancel one another out I hasten to add that the fields in which they operate are different. A marriage between the harlot and the eunuch is an unsavoury arrangement, which one associates with the underworld, and it does not become any more respectable when it is procured in Steel House.
Over this very curious body, the Board, sits the Minister, and he has power, as far as I can see, to prevent the Board doing almost anything that they otherwise would be allowed to do under the Bill. His powers are very ill-defined and very wide. They are certainly undermining to the authority of any self-respecting Board. I think that they are unfair to the Minister and the very able officials who serve him. If he adheres to the complaint which he implied the other day, that his present responsibilities are too onerous and invidious, I can assure him that under this Bill they will be a great deal worse.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have made a great deal of play about the only positive power for planning that they can find contained in this Bill. That flows from the Minister. It is to be within his power to undertake investment where he is satisfied that it is in the public interest and where the privately owned steel companies will not touch it


because it is not profitable. Hon. Members opposite have made great play of that. That is exactly what they were intended to do. That provision is pure propaganda. It is designed to obscure the very weighty charge repeatedly brought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that this Board will be a brake on the industry and not an accelerator.
As this provision is propaganda to deal with that charge, it is scarcely worth arguing about and it can be dismissed with three comments. First, it will never happen short of war. We have the Minister's authority for saying that, because he said the other day that he could envisage only the most improbable circumstances in which such a power would ever be used. It will never happen under the Tory Government, and the system would not exist under Labour. Secondly, if it did happen, why should necessary investment in this vital industry be made in this absurd and inchoate fashion, with the private investor taking all the profit and the taxpayer bearing the loss? What an arrangement to ask Parliament to agree to. Thirdly, even if these propositions were rejected, the Minister has no power under Clause 4 to re-equip or remodel existing plant so long as the owners of that plant find it profitable to keep it in operation.

Mr. Spencer Summers: To put matters in proper perspective, the hon. Gentleman should add that in the private sector the State takes half the profit but that if there are any losses the private sector has to meet them all.

Mr. Freeman: That is not a proposition of which we are unaware. I was making a point on Clause 4, which I think is a substantial one. Supposing my first two propositions are not accepted by the House, the Minister under Clause 4 still has no power that I can see to re-equip or remodel existing plant so long as the owners find it profitable to keep it in operation. He can compel people to keep in operation plant which it was intended to close down, but I think that that is all that he can do. But the remodelling of existing plant will almost prove the commonest need which the Board will find confronting them in coming years.
Finally, we come to the Realisation Agency. The Minister has no power over that at all. It is answerable, I presume, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Suppose that the agency and the Board really do try to do their job and to do what the Government say they are going to do. There will certainly be innumerable clashes between them. Each presumably will report to its own Minister. The Board will report to the Minister of Supply and the agency to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I myself have been inside a Government, and I can imagine what will happen. There will be Departmental conferences and arguments. Sometimes one or the other will give way, but not always. There may be a row in the Cabinet, even about some perfectly obscure industrial matter which the Cabinet cannot be expected to understand, and before we know where we are we shall create a situation where the Prime Minister tries to intervene in the steel industry. Here I give a solemn warning. If anybody in the steel industry does not know what happens when the Prime Minister interferes in an industry, let him ask those engaged in transport and he will hear about it in very striking language.
I ask the Minister to reflect upon the words with which he introduced this Bill:
… a comprehensive system of public supervision embracing the whole iron and steel industry, and so bring to an end the extremely harmful split created by the 1949 Act.
Then again:
… to restore independence, initiative and financial responsibility to the companies …
My goodness! And finally:
Public ownership, is, I submit to the House, the most unpractical and the most cumbersome method of exercising public control that has even been devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 266–269.]
I can only presume that the person who wrote the Minister's speech did not in fact read the Bill.
This great sprawling cobweb of bureaucracy set out in this Bill is really too bad to be true; and, of course, it is not exactly true as I have described it. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not all fools and they know well enough that my right hon. Friend and I, in speaking of this Bill, are painting a somewhat


exaggerated picture of what in fact will happen. This is what would happen if the Bill were ever to work; but it will not work and nothing will happen, except a reversion to the private empire of privately-owned semi-monopoly, directed from Steel House. We are simply going straight back to what existed prior to nationalisation.
The agency alone is real. The agency's job is to sell off what it can as soon as it can. That is real. But the Board is pure camouflage. Tory propaganda over the years has been driven to acknowledge that this industry must be publicly controlled. The whole apparatus of this Bill is designed to convince people that private ownership of the industry can be reconciled with public control. If this organisation is the best that the Government can do, then it is itself the clearest possible proof that those two propositions are incompatible. The scheme will work all right in the private interest of Steel House—it will not work in the public interest.
I do not want to ascribe motives. One finds a certain distaste in the perpetual bandying of motives across the Table of this House, and I do not intend to ascribe motives now. But I should like right hon. Gentlemen opposite to reflect objectively upon what the Bill does. It hands back to the friends and political supporters of right hon. Gentlemen opposite the greatest concentration of private economic power in Britain and the profitable parts of one of the nation's most profitable industries; at the same time keeping in public ownership the unprofitable parts, for which the public has to pay, and also very substantially protecting private investors in steel from most of the risks which private capital ought to bear.
The Minister talked about independent initiative and financial responsibility. When the facts are looked at objectively, it really is not necessary to ascribe motives. What I have described is to happen. The Minister has made no serious attempt to argue the case at all for de-nationalisation as such. He states that enterprise is stifled and that the industry has no incentives under public ownership. Then he replaces public ownership by this muddle of public interference.
The "Financial Times," which is certainly no friend to the party on this side

of the House, said yesterday in its leading article:
It would be the very top of absurdity if the final result of a Bill to denationalise steel was to be the extension of monopolistic Government control.
Has the Minister any evidence at all to substain the charges—if they are charges—and assertions that he has made about the effects of public ownership of this industry? Can he give an instance of nationalisation's having damaged a single unit in the industry? If he can—he may be able to, but I doubt it—can he point to one single problem of organisation, planning or finance which could not be solved by constructive discussion within the framework of nationalisation?
Of course the existing arrangements could be improved, and improving them would be a constructive and worthwhile job. Indeed, if the Government had come to us at the beginning of the Session, or at the beginning of this Parliament, and said, "We accept that there is now a status quo in the steel industry, but we are still anxious to see what can be done to improve the organisation which you created and which we do not regard as perfect," my hon. Friends and I would have looked at the Government's proposals on their merits, with every desire to co-operate with them in strengthening the steel industry. But the Government have not even tried.
Once again the industry is to be thrown into uncertainty—that was the basis of the Conservative Party's charge against us in 1949 and 1950—because the Government insist on denationalising without even the most perfunctory attempt to prove the need. That is why we accuse them of playing politics with a vital industry, and that is why we cannot tolerate the Bill.
Holding the opinions that we do in this matter, it is not a threat—of which we have so often been accused—but the sheer necessity of straight dealing that we should warn the industry and the country where we stand. This solution is not acceptable, and under a Labour Government the industry will be returned to public ownership as quickly as possible. Let no one be in any doubt about that. Public ownership is necessary for two very broad reasons. It is necessary be-


cause effective national planning, economic and social, is not really possible without it; and the ineptitude of this Bill proves that. It is also necessary because in modern industrial society the real power rests with the big corporations, and a democracy has to choose whether these great economic empires are to be subject to public accountability and control or whether they are to be answerable only to themselves.
I should like the House to listen to words which Sir Stafford Cripps used during the Second Reading of the Labour Government's Bill to nationalise the industry. There are hon. Members here now who were not in the House then. Sir Stafford Cripps said:
A half-way house may be perfectly feasible in an industry which is not so fundamental to our whole stategic and industrial policy but it is not, in my view, possible or practicable in the iron and steel industry. And this is particularly so when the owners of the industry happen to hold political and economic views the very opposite of those of the Government, as evidenced by the fact that the head of the Steel Federation sits on and speaks from the Front Opposition Bench.
That refers to Sir Andrew Duncan, who has since died.
This position is not unlike that between this House and another place. … When that other place shares the views of the Government as expressed in this House, all is well and everything works smoothly. Quite the contrary is the case when the other place does not share the Government's views. So one might compare the Steel Federation to a sort of Second Chamber in the steel industry which can bring to nought any national policy decided upon by the Government, and that even without any public argument or disclosure of its reasons. The time is past when that sort of position can be tolerated by any intelligent democracy. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 324.]
The history of Parliament has been largely concerned with securing for the people from time to time the effective power in the community. That battle is still being fought today, in the economic circumstances of the 20th century. In the end Parliament must win it if democracy is to survive; and Parliament will prove itself, as it so often proved itself before, sensible and imaginative enough to find ways of dealing with the, admittedly real, problems which follow from this inevitable transfer of ownership.
The Minister's so-called "moderate middle course"—I quote his words—is no such thing. It offers no basis of even

partial agreement between the parties. The Bill is one of two things. It is either foolish and unworkable or workable and dishonest. We suspect the latter, and we ask the House to reject it.

5.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I should like to start by saying that it is nice to see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) back at the Box again. The last occasion on which he addressed us from the Box—it was from this side—was on the question of iron and steel. At the end of his speech today he charged us with once again throwing the industry into uncertainty. That is at least an admission from the hon. Gentleman that the industry was thrown into uncertainty by the action of the Government of which he was a Member. The burden of his speech on the last occasion was that he had not thrown the industry into uncertainty. I am glad that he should have admitted the converse to us today.
I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on some good wit and some not such good wit. I am also glad that he was able to acknowledge that it has been profitable to be patriotic, for his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) told us on Tuesday that it was now patriotic to be profitable. The hon. Gentleman inevitably concentrated most of his remarks, as he should do, on the main difference between the two sides of the House about the industry and the difference as to the means by which the public interest in the iron and steel industry shall be safeguarded. We know the Opposition's case. In their view, the only effective way is to take over the ownership of companies which produce a major part of the iron and steel products of the country. I propose to deal with what we think is the only effective way to safeguard the public interest over the whole of the iron and steel industry.
Clearly the public has a first interest, that this industry should produce economically, efficiently and adequately. No one argues that this industry is not a basic industry. No one argues that it did not voluntarily organise itself as a national industry long before it was nationalised. The special position of the industry in the national economy gives the public a special interest in the


development of its capacity, in the modernisation and improvement of its plant, and in the supplies of its raw materials, on which I shall have a word to say later. This special position in the economy, and the fact that in the nature of large parts of the industry there has to be a measure of co-ordination, gives the public a special interest in the prices charged for those products. It is, therefore, on development and on prices that the arguments about the public interest and the means to safeguard it have been concentrated.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and the hon. Member for Watford charged my right hon. Friend with having argued little, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he asserted much. I will come to the hon. Member for Watford in a moment, but the right hon. Member for Vauxhall overlooked altogether the fact that in the middle part of my right hon. Friend's speech he went very thoroughly into a comparison of the public safeguards in the 1949 Act and in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman found it convenient to overlook all those arguments, because he had no intention—and, indeed, I think he had no means—of contradicting them.
The hon. Member for Watford went one further. He said that there were no points at all in my right hon. Friend's speech, and then immediately afterwards produced three very main propositions and principles behind this Bill. We all know the debating tactic of saying that the man whom it is one's lot to answer has made no point. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman stand convicted of the invalidity of their point out of their own mouths.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall objected to the inclusion of the phrase "under competitive conditions" in Clause 3. He, of course, has always claimed that there could be competition within his monopolistic State Corporation, and he claimed it again the other day. Yet the main virtue that he and his hon. Friend claimed for the Corporation was that in its area its control was absolute. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's purpose in making these inconsistent assertions at fifteen minute intervals, but I do not think he really expected to get away with the claim that there is real competition within a State

corporation. On Tuesday night my hon. Friend the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), in notable speeches—and I must express my own regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green was interrupted in his speech—argued the advantages for competition and financial autonomy in a co-ordinated and supervised steel industry.
I want to deal now with the argument that, immediately this industry organised itself in its various parts under private ownership competition was removed as a spur to improvement; and the argument goes on to say that competition must remain removed as a spur to improvement, even under public supervision. The determination of maximum prices does not, of course, prevent price competition, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West argued on Tuesday. It certainly does not prevent competition in reducing costs.
The system by which the Federation, and more recently the Government, have considered the development plan of the industry as a whole certainly attempts to co-ordinate development in the national interest, but this does not remove competition to increase production and reduce costs by improving plant. For the last 20 years steel companies have improved their plant and have altered their pattern of production in competition with each other, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. Finally, and possibly most important of all, there was full competition as to quality of products between individual firms.
The industry in organising itself and the Government in supervising the industry from 1934 until 1951 have developed conditions in which the advantages of both co-ordination and competition could accrue to the nation and to the industry. In short, there must in this industry be both freedom and order. Now there was clearly room for a difference of opinion as to the amount of freedom and the amount of order, but the approach of the party opposite seems to be based on the theory that once co-ordination and public supervision in an industry as important to the national economy as the iron and steel industry are accepted, one


had better remove all freedom, stifle free enterprise and set up a large Government monopoly. This Bill, on the other hand, seeks to destroy that monopoly; and it also seeks to provide the conditions in which the industry will be able to work under competitive conditions with a proper amount of co-ordination and public supervision.
Spokesmen of the party opposite—and the hon. Member for Watford said it again today—have always laid emphasis on the importance of development in the iron and steal industry. We agree with him.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am reluctant to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman went at great length to answer the point I made, and which I asked the Government to answer, but he really has not touched the point at all. Perhaps he could just add a sentence or two. The question I asked was: What additional competition is expected in the industry as a result of this Bill that does not exist at the moment under the Corporation? Secondly, in what way, if any, was competition stifled by the Corporation compared with what existed before the Corporation came into existence?

Mr. Low: I am afraid that I have wearied the House for 15 minutes by answering that question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I answered it satisfactorily to myself. I thought I dealt with it in this way. I first of all proved, to my own satisfaction, and I thought to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends, that there was no competition and could be no competition in a State Corporation where there was, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, absolute control. I then went on to prove that there had been in the past, and there could be in the future, competition in the iron and steel industry under private ownership and public supervision; and if there was competition then—and there can be in future—that is clearly better than the situation today where there is no competition.
Perhaps I can now go on to deal with development, because we all agree—I do not think there is any dispute about it—on the importance of development in the iron and steel industry. The party opposite have argued quite consistently since 1946, except for a short flirtation

in 1947—nearly an important and beneficial flirtation—that the iron and steel industry will only carry out a development plan that is essential to the national interest if the iron and steel industry is publicly owned.
That was the argument they used in May, 1946, in relation to the Post-war Development Plan. The late Government's assertion then was that, faced with the necessity of carrying out this vast scheme,
a divorce of ownership from control just would not work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 845.]
The fact is, of course, that the divorce of ownership from control worked exceedingly well up to 1951. A great deal of new plant was installed. It takes a long time to make this plant—for example, four years for a blast furnace—and plants coming into production now were planned then and ordered long before the Corporation came to life.
Capacity was increased, production was increased. Some schemes in that plan were not proceeded with for various reasons, and one was the shortage of houses near Corby. Other schemes which were not in the plan were introduced. But what matters is the production and capacity created, and it matters that all the production targets were in fact reached or exceeded—and nobody has challenged that statement. Let me read again the extract from the wholly impartial and objective report of the Anglo-American Productivity Team on Iron and Steel, which I read to the House in the White Paper debate:
… the British iron and steel industry has since 1945 been engaged on the construction programme to the full extent of the resources available to the plant manufacturers.
Our solution is that a supervisory Board should discuss with the industry the general plan for its development, as it is required to do under Clause 4. The Board's approach to development will thus be positive, and, on top of it is the Minister's power to undertake development in the circumstances set out in the Bill.
I dealt last time with the hon. Gentleman's argument about the positive powers. My hon. Friends have dealt with them in the first part of the debate, and I do not think it necessary to weary the House again with the answer. The right


hon. Member for Vauxhall made a point on Tuesday when he said:
Normally the most useful way of increasing capacity is by modernising existing plants, and not in building new ones."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 291.]
He made the point that this is not covered in the Bill. I must tell him that it is covered in the Bill, and because we agree with him we have provided for exactly that point. The functions of the Board and the Minister in Clause 4 are to secure the provision of additional production facilities. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 31 (2) he will see that those words are to be construed as including the
reconstruction or adaptation of, or making of additions to, existing production facilities.
I want now to come to raw materials. The Board will also have responsibility for keeping under review the arrangements made by the industry for the supply of their raw materials. The hon. Member for Watford seemed to be arguing that they would not be able to look ahead in this matter and that the Bill was so worded that they could not anticipate. If he reads the Bill again I think he will see that he has made a false point on the wording of the Bill. The Bill refers to the arrangements made by the industry for the supply of their raw materials.

Mr. Jack Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman now telling the House that, in addition to the Clause to which he refers, the Minister has the power to erect additional plant on existing sites for which he himself will be responsible?

Mr. Low: I am not telling the House that. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I should be very happy to deal with the point made by the hon. Member if I were speaking after him. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's point as I understood it. It was that we referred only to new production facilities and new developments and did not refer to the modernisation or replacement of existing plant. If I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman we can deal with the point later; but I have dealt with that point I think quite satisfactorily.

Mr. Strauss: I think there is another misunderstanding. I said it was either not in the Bill or certainly not practicable for the Minister himself, if he wants

development to take place, to come along and do it. It is clearly not the practical way to expand or improve or modernise existing plant. Obviously he cannot go into an existing big plant and start modernising it himself and building bigger blast furnaces and so on. It is not practicable as long as the plant remains under private ownership.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman is developing the point which he made. He is now making an extension of the simple point to which I have referred. He had the power, when he was Minister of Supply, to deal with the sort of thing he has in mind.
But we have in mind that this sort of thing will never be necessary, as some of my hon. Friends argued the other day. I am sorry to detain the House again with this argument, but is it not quite clear that if the industry were as bad as the right hon. Gentleman keeps on making out, then this is one of the ways in which it might be persuaded to modernise its plant—if it were reluctant to do so—because of the fear that my right hon. Friend would set up a competing plant nearby or in some other area. If the competing plant were successful, then obviously the recalcitrant firm would go out of business. That is a point which my right hon. Friend made in the White Paper debate and it was made by me in my winding up speech; and it has never been met at any time. I thought that once we had dealt with the point we might get on to some new points—and one of the new points was raw materials supply.
It has been argued that the industry has been backward in making arrangements for the future supplies of raw materials. As far as I am aware, no overseas raw materials plan has been held up for lack of finance from the steel industry. The steel industry made an investment in French West Africa in 1948, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, shipments from which will begin next year. As an example of how they have not been backward in coming forward, I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1949 the industry were anxious to participate in another raw materials scheme in Newfoundland, but his Government felt unable to sanction this because of dollar difficulties. I am not arguing that point with him, but at least


it proves that the industry were not backward about their raw materials supply.
Both the right hon. and the hon. Gentleman pointed out that under the Bill as at present drafted the Board has no direct power to obtain information from B.I.S.C. or B.I.S.C. (Ore). We were already considering this point and we will try to deal with it at Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the point has been made by others; it was made in "The Economist" on 15th November, as perhaps he read.
In our opinion, raw materials supplies will be one of the major problems facing the industry for many years. If that argument is accepted, then clearly it is important that there should be a constant comprehensive review covering the needs of those who use the raw materials and the arrangements for the supply of the raw materials. Indeed, the right hon. Member on Tuesday admitted that even under his scheme there would have to be co-ordinating machinery for this and other problems. But he did not provide the co-ordinating machinery. This Bill does provide it.
My right hon. Friend explained why it was that the casting of iron and steel by any process is included in paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule of the Bill and why we cannot accept the suggestion from some quarters that foundries should be left out of the scheme. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall did not deal with that argument at all. Instead, he treated the proposals as giving him an opportunity of throwing out another threat.
Let us examine the arguments behind the threat. He seemed to be arguing the merits of his Act which resulted in the haphazard nationalisation of some foundries, covering only about one-fifth of foundry output, just because they happened to be parts of integrated concerns. I ask him this question. Does this mean that the Labour Party did not in 1949 consider that there was any need for public supervision of the foundry industry? And what are their views about that point now? I remember hearing the views of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).
I wonder why the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a

member included foundries under the supervision of Sir Archibald Forbes' Board in 1946. Is it not a fact that that Board supervised the raw materials of the foundry industry and even supervised the development plans of the industry and some foundry prices? Did the right hon. Gentleman not find that satisfactory? The right hon. Gentleman should be open with the House and let it know that, in fact, he considered then that the Iron and Steel Board very effectively supervised the iron foundry industry itself.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for a moment? We will be open on this. We can all learn from experience and mistakes.

Mr. Low: I do not quite see the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument, because I understood that he asked my right hon. Friend to keep foundries in the Bill—rather differently from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am admitting that we did not bring them in. It was a mistake. We can all make mistakes, but we should profit by mistakes, and put them in next time.

Mr. Low: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wanted to give him a chance to make it quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, had made a mistake, and was probably making a mistake in his argument last Tuesday.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not say that.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman said on Tuesday that if and when the Labour Party are returned to power they will take account of the views expressed by us on the comprehensive supervision of the industry. Perhaps he will take account also of the views of his hon. Friend behind him. We are flattered, certainly, that he should now take some account of our views, but were no views about providing comprehensive supervision for the iron and steel industry expressed throughout the debates on the Act of 1949? Of course they were. In fact, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believes one single word of what he said on Tuesday about the foundries. He merely sought, by confusing public opinion, to find another opportunity of stirring up trouble to try


to prevent the Government from carrying out their intentions. He rejected nationalisation of the foundries in 1948 for very good reasons, and I am quite confident he will always reject their nationalisation.
In the light of the points so clearly made by the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday and not in the light of these bogus threats, the House will, I am sure, agree that the foundries ought to be in the Bill. There have been, unhappily, many misunderstandings about the effect of the Bill upon the foundries and some others, and, at my right hon. Friend's request, I have been seeing trade associations who wish to see me, and I shall continue to do so, with the object of explaining the Bill to them and listening to their special problems. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are special problems which cannot be discussed until a Bill is published.
We have sought to establish a system of comprehensive supervision that will be workable. As we have often explained, this supervision relates to specified activities by whomsoever they are performed. We have given much thought to the definition of these activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on Tuesday brought up special points on the definition of rolling and forging. We shall try to define rolling so as to exclude bending and any fabricating operation which does not alter the cross-section of the metal. The forging point may be more difficult, but we shall consider this carefully between now and the Committee stage. We shall be grateful for all suggestions on these technical points of definition.
The other side of public supervision relates to prices. There has been in this debate very little comment on the price control Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall argued that the power to control prices should rest with the Minister, but that was not the case under his Act. But in this Bill it is the case, and it seemed an odd criticism. In this Bill, as Clause 8 shows, the Minister is given a reserve power over prices. The powers in the Bill, of course, do not extend outside the industry. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 23rd October:
The task of curbing the black market operations outside the industry has nothing to do with the iron and steel industry itself. It

calls for Government action backed by the sanctions of the criminal law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1295.]
The Board's power in this Bill to determine maximum prices will enable it to protect the consumer where the ordinary play of competition does not provide him with protection.
I should like now to say a word about the Board. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is not here. On Tuesday he said:
The key of this Bill is the Board with its power of supervising and seeing what is happening, the fact that it will gather information and make that available and, through the Minister, will be responsible to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 317.]
The members of the Board will be drawn from both sides of the iron and steel industry, from consumer industries, and from independents. Producers will be in a minority, and this is the answer to the assertion that Steel House will run the Board. Consumers will be members of the Board and will protect the consumers' interest much better than a consumers' council could. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East.
Since it will neither own nor manage any part of the industry, the Board will be able to provide the broad supervision in the national interest which an owning or managing board of a corporation cannot give. On the Board trade union leaders will be enabled to take part in the general policy of this vital industry without having to cross the industrial floor and become employers. The effectiveness of this kind of board will depend primarily, in our view, on the respect it comes to command rather than on the specific powers which it is given. The industry will look—

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)
rose—

Mr. Low: I should like to get on. I have been interrupted a great deal. The industry will look to the Board as the policy maker, and will, as we are sure it will, co-operate with it. To assist in this we are giving the Board specific powers as the House knows, which will affect vital points, and we are providing for the Board two general sanctions of great significance. First, the sanction of


Parliamentary and public opinion. The Board's annual report will obviously be most carefully scrutinised in this House and outside. Second, the Board is to be consulted over any modifications in import duties—and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), who seemed to have overlooked paragraph 27 of the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall asked me if I would give some information about the Government's intention concerning the membership of the Board, and asked some questions about the Agency, too. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know what proportion of the Board would be full time and what proportion part time members. A similar question had been put to him—I do not know if he will remember this—in the course of the Committee stage of his Bill when he was Minister of Supply, and he answered:
I feel that the real wisdom at this stage … is not to lay down hard and fast rules."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 9th December, 1948, c. 145–6.]
We agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and we can best answer his question by saying that we intend that there should be both part-time and full-time members of the Board.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Apart from the Chairman?

Mr. Low: I think I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question. We leave it at that. The same argument applies to questions on the Agency, but I can say that the members of the Agency will be, as is set out in the White Paper, persons possessing the necessary qualifications and experience for the duties of the Agency. But they will not be Treasury officials.

Mr. Jack Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this question of the membership of the Board, would he be good enough to quote the authority on which he says that the trade unions will take part in this Board? What authority has he for making that statement?

Mr. Low: I think my statement was that they will be invited. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Obviously, nobody has been invited yet. We have to wait until the Bill becomes law.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Arising out of that—

Mr. Low: I want to get on. The right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary comment about the duties of the Iron and Steel Board which was set up by his predecessor, and for which he was responsible. He told the House that the Forbes Board "had to operate within a narrow compass. Those were his words. How narrow I will leave the House to judge when I tell them that these were their duties—

Mr. Strauss: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, I think he is misquoting me. If he is not, I said something that I did not mean; but I think I said that they were operating within a narrow compass. Their terms of reference were as wide as the world, but they operated within a very narrow compass and the duties they performed, although important, were very small.

Mr. Low: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means, but perhaps I can help the House by letting them know—

Mr. I. Mikardo: Do not worry about it. Keep to your brief.

Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman is famed for his lack of courtesy in speaking without bothering to rise, and also for the number of columns of HANSARD he takes up without ever getting up at all. He has written a good deal about the iron and steel industry from time to time and a great deal of it has been very inaccurate. I am doing my best to try to deal with these matters as accurately as I can, and if he thinks that I carry about in my head the exact definition of the duties of the Iron and Steel Board—imposed on them not by my right hon. Friend but by the former Government—he is certainly a very remarkable person.

Mr. Mikardo: Since the hon. Member has said that much of what I have written is inaccurate, would he be so good as to quote one single thing I have written which he thinks is inaccuratae—or must he stick to his brief all the time?

Mr. Low: I can remember at least one gross inaccuracy that the hon. Gentleman perpetrated at an earlier date, when he argued that the 1945 Plan of the industry was made only as result of pressure from


the Socialist Government. There have been other inaccuracies in his observations since then. I have usually got an equable temperament, but I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman's interventions from a sitting posture have put me off my stroke for the moment.
I was referring to the duties of the Board. This is an important matter because, as we have often made it clear, the Iron and Steel Board from 1946 onwards was in our opinion a valuable development in the history of supervision of the iron and steel industry. Their duties were to review and supervise programmes and development; to supervise the industry in current matters, which means in everything, including the position of raw materials; to advise on general price policy and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Board were to administer on his behalf certain powers of direct control which he had over the industry, including powers over production, the distribution of raw materials and imports. They covered effectively all the 2,400 firms mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday. Where, then, was this narrow compass in which they were operating?

Mr. Strauss: I have looked up that part of my speech to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I said that the Board had to operate in a narrow compass. I stand by that. They had to operate in a narrow compass because they had hardly any powers to do anything else. They had certain advisory powers, but their actual powers to interfere in the industry or to do anything at all in the industry were very narrow indeed. They had not any powers whatsoever to do anything beyond very confined limits.

Mr. Low: They were backed by all the powers that the right hon. Gentleman had. He knows that very well.

Mr. Strauss: They were not.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the size of the staff about which I should not have bothered the House if he had not referred to it. The staff of the Board was in fact the staff of the Iron and Steel Division of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry. It numbered 68 when it started in 1946 and 112 when it finished in 1949. The right hon. Gentleman always takes pride in

the smallness of the Corporation's staff, but he never adds that the industry as a whole to all intents and purposes remained the responsibility of his Ministry after Vesting Day and that the Iron and Steel Division of the Ministry remained about as large as it was before.
A very important question has been referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, by some of my hon. Friends including the hon. Member for Aylesbury and the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White), the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and by the hon. Member for Watford. They asked what would be the liaison with Continental countries under the Schuman Plan. The United Kingdom has established working relations with the Schuman High Authority by means of a strong Government delegation. Experts to advise the delegation have been appointed from both sides of the industry and it is our intention to associate the new Board with the work of the delegation; but we did not consider it necessary to make any mention of this in the Bill and we still do not consider it to be necessary.

Mr. Freeman: That is not quite the point. I quite appreciate that it is not necessary to mention it in the Bill. But has the Government any power over the industry if the industry proceeds to follow a course which conflicts with Goverment policy?—because under the Nationalisation Act there almost certainly is such power.

Mr. Low: That is a matter into which we might go more thoroughly at another time. It is a most important matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the hon. Member for Watford mentioned in their arguments, but I should certainly like to consider it further before answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
On both the previous occasions in this Parliament when we have debated the Government's policy on iron and steel we have made it clear that we are seeking a common sense solution to an industrial problem—a solution which will be generally accepted and will therefore take this industry out of the political arena. Ultimately, whatever we do here, it is the management and the workers in the industry who will make the iron and steel.


As other hon. Members have said, though we talk here about organisation and principles we are all thinking of the human problems at the back of it all. It is our job to provide the conditions in which that work can best be done.
On Tuesday the right hon. Gentleman tried to dash the hopes of the country that there would result from this Bill a fair and lasting settlement by emphasising to the House that he and his friends would never approve of the scheme in this Bill. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not approve of the Bill, but I should be very surprised if, in their innermost hearts, some at least of his friends did not approve of the system to which the Bill gives effect. By no means everyone agrees with the right hon. Gentleman that the scheme is technically unsound. The hon. Member for Watford also argued that the scheme is technically unsound.

Mr. Freeman: Not at all.

Mr. Low: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman was not arguing that; but it was certainly the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday; so at least we have another example of dissension on the Front Bench opposite. It is suggested to me by my hon. Friends who have some knowledge of these things that that is a question which should be decided on the second ballot.
I want to read to the House an extract from the "New Statesman and Nation." It says:
… there is no technical reason why this plan should not work adequately.
The reason why I wanted to be quite certain whether the hon. Member for Watford agreed with that was because I knew that he had some connection with the "New Statesman and Nation"; but I have now established that at least he considers that the scheme is technically sound.

Mr. Freeman: We need not have any real discussion about this. What I said was that the Bill was either foolish and unworkable or that it was workable and crooked, and I thought that the second alternative was true.

Mr. Low: That is one way out of the hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but it does

not seem to me to add up to an agreement with his right hon. Friend, who argued at some length on Tuesday that the Bill was establishing a scheme that was technically unsound. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall has said and what the hon. Member for Watford has said, we still believe that the system outlined in the Bill will work, and that it will be generally recognised by both sides of the industry and by the country that this system best safeguards the public interest. For that reason, we ask the House to vote for the Bill this evening.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in what he has said. I was rather dismayed by what appeared to be his superficial knowledge and shallow understanding of the real issues involved. In one part of his speech, he built up a case for the great necessity of competition in the steel industry here in Britain. Surely, in 1952, we should be recognising that the main issue is outside competition, and that we have had the great idea of a Schuman Plan. We have America, with her great industrial potentiality, drawing to herself a proportion of the raw materials available, which makes it very difficult for the industry in this country to compete as between one steel master and another.
To me it appears that the Tory Party's policy in connection with steel is in line with what they are trying to accomplish in respect of the transport of this country. It appears to me that the Government's yardstick is that those portions of the industry which are lucrative should go back to private enterprise, and the profits emanating from them should go into private pockets, whereas those portions—and this applies to transport as well as to steel—which are not making a profit and which are not as modern as they might be or which, for some other reason, are incurring loss, should remain within the orbit of State management, and the losses incurred should be borne by the taxpayers.
The ideology which the Tory Party have supposedly held for many years against nationalisation appears today to have undergone a change. They are really not against nationalisation as such at all,


but are only against nationalisation where it has transferred profits from private pockets to the public purse. We ought, therefore, to recognise that the Tory Party have changed in their outlook, because they used to argue very forcibly against any nationalisation whatsoever. The Tory Party do not take that line today. So far as steel is concerned, I think they are not de-nationalising the industry at all. What they are de-nationalising are the profits emanating from it.
I think that this Bill can cause great harm to the steel industry, particularly the industry as I know it in my constituency, and I want to talk chiefly about Scotland and my own constituency rather than about the general position throughout the country.
I have seen in Scotland and in my own constituency a settling down of this industry since its nationalisation. Since the passing of the 1949 Act, there has been more confidence created. As one who has lived his life near to the workers, I think that the men, women and children in the steel towns enjoy more happiness today than ever they have had before. There is more real contentment. I think that we ought to regard very seriously anything that will tend to put that spirit of contentment and goodwill, resulting in better productive output, in jeopardy. We ought to regard anything that will disturb that position with the greatest suspicion.
This goes far beyond the actual men and families directly working in the industry. I am thinking of the towns of Kilburnie and Glengarnock, in my own constituency, where the traders are enjoying a far greater security and far better returns for their work than ever they have had before. I feel that there is a great danger in this Bill for Scotland. I believe that if we are to get greater production in this industry, we must modernise existing plants. I think that we should be very careful not to destroy areas where the life of the people has been allied to steel for a long period of time and to see that we do not take prosperity away from them when we are talking of integration and thinking of the future.
I should like to know what is to happen to the plants that the Minister and the Agency are not able to sell—the plants that are not going to make a profit. Is there a possibility that they may be closed down, and is there a possibility that we

are going to revert to what happened in the 1930s when steel making went down, and privation and suffering were caused to many thousands of our people? I know that the Minister has indicated that he has power to take over and operate a plant, but he indicated in his speech of 23rd October that this was very unlikely to happen. In the House on 23rd October, he said:
I do not believe that that power will often be needed or used, except in very rare cases where it is needed on strategic grounds.
He said earlier,
If the Government wish to undertake a scheme which is uneconomic, then it is up to the Government to pay for it. I personally do not believe that this kind of case will happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1293.]
But it does appear, if circumstances arise in which plant cannot be sold and the present steel masters think that it is going to be an uneconomic proposition, that, according to what the Minister said, there is the greatest danger that the community will be deprived of that plant because it will not be operated. I think that in Scotland we must take particular care about this eventuality.
During the last two years, progress has been held up, and steel production has dropped to a certain extent in Scotland. I know that there has been lack of scrap, and I know that there has been to a certain extent a lack of coking coal. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) here, because I think that he was rather ungenerous the other day when he put the onus of that on the Coal Board. I think I can show that that condemnation was not really necessary, and that the Coal Board are cognisant of their responsibility to the steel industry in Scotland.
We should try to utilise the raw materials that are in existence in Scotland rather than go outside Scotland for them. In Lloyds Bank Review of July of this year, the following passage is to be found on page 47 under the heading "Coal and Steel":
From the first two charts on page 58 it will be noted that while the trend of coal production has been upwards for the last two years, that for steel output has tended to decline since the summer of 1950.
This refers to Scotland.
If increased supplies of raw materials are forthcoming however, in particular iron ore


and coke, it is hoped that the steel production in the latter part of this year should rise above the 1951 level.
That shows definitely that steel production has been affected because of the lack of raw materials.
The Report on Industry in Scotland for 1951, at page 7, rather underlined that point. It says in paragraph 2:
The expansion of manufacturing output was impeded by shortage of materials, especially steel.
Paragraph 4 of the same document says:
The production of steel in Scotland fell by 13 per cent. largely because of the shortage of raw materials, particularly scrap, foreign supplies of which dwindled to a fraction in the latter part of the year. Output of pig iron, on the other hand, increased by 7 per cent.
That is very important.
I am concerned with the position in Scotland because one of the main industries in my constituency is Colville's Steel Works at Glengarnock. I am concerned for the future of the people in my area; I am concerned for the future of the steel workers if this Bill becomes law. A decline in the production of steel in that area will hit my people vary hard, and we have long memories of what happened in the past.
I may say that Ayrshire has a great record in coal and ironstone production, and a great mining industry. Vast quantities of ironstone have been produced in the past in Ayrshire. That industry collapsed many years ago, and great privation and suffering were caused to many thousands of miners and their families because the steel owners at that time preferred to make steel the easy way. They preferred to make it the cheap way. They preferred profits to the wellbeing of the Scottish people.
The main reason for the decline was that they obtained scrap, and in obtaining that scrap the blast furnaces went down and the ironstone mines in my area went out of use, with the result that thousands of men were thrown onto the scrap heap. At that time there was no provision at all to cushion the blow that occurred.

Mr. R. Brooman-White: Since the hon. Member has been referring to a point that I made, perhaps I might explain that I was concerned with development since the war. It has been

suggested that the steel industry in Scotland has not developed as fast as it should to meet the raw material difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has rightly emphasised. I was simply arguing that if the National Coal Board were standing by now with a sufficient supply of coking coal, it would be a good example of greater foresight by nationalised industry.

Mr. Manuel: Perhaps I may quote from "Industry in Scotland, 1951," which says at page 31:
The National Coal Board are at present investigating the possibility of developing reserves of coking coal which are situated near Glasgow.

Mr. Brooman-White: They may be considering it, but they should go ahead with it.

Mr. Manuel: I want to discuss something which may be of importance to the steel industry and certainly of importance to Ayrshire in the future. In the past, we had blast furnaces producing pig iron at Glengarnock, Dairy and Kilwinning in Central Ayrshire. We also had them at Ardeer in North Ayrshire and at Lugar, Muirkirk and Waterside in South Ayrshire, and blast furnaces at Hurlford in the Kilmarnock constituency.
These blast furnaces were supplied—this is going back many years—from ironstone mines in Ayrshire, many of them in my constituency. These mines were operated in my constituency at Dairy, Stoopshill No. 9, Glengarnock No. 6, also Birsieknowe and the Dockra in the Barrmill district. These are actually in my own constituency.
These pits were not worked out. I want to quote from the "Geological Survey of Scotland, 1920" which shows the position that exists in North Ayrshire at the moment and the amount of ironstone and iron ore that are still in the ground. This document is by M. MacGreggor, G. W. Lee, and G. V. Wilson, concerning the Dalry Clayband ironstone reserves in North Ayrshire, including Lochwinnoch, and states that in the district of Lugton and Caldwell there is an area of one square mile with a probable reserve of 3,500,000 tons. At Kilbirnie and Lochwinnock, which is adjacent, there are 4½ square miles with a probable reserve of 12 million tons. At Dairy and Glengarnock and the Barrmill


district adjacent to that, again there is an area of 13 square miles with a probable reserve of 38,500,000 tons. This gives a total of probable reserves of 54 million tons.
The Survey indicates that in addition to these there is a similar area known as Logans Bands, with a possible reserve of 31 million tons. Also in the Lugar and Dalmellington area there are reserves of black band ironstone of 25 million tons. These are all in Ayrshire.
I want to put this question to the Minister. The Third Schedule commences with these words:
The quarrying or mining of iron ore or the treatment or preparation of iron ore for smelting.
The Minister has indicated that he is taking these powers. Am I to understand from that Schedule that the Minister can, on his own initiative, give instructions for the extraction of iron ore if necessary in Scotland, in my constituency or anywhere else, if it is proved, according to a geological survey of the iron content, that it is worth while? I cannot imagine that with the industry reverting to private hands we shall have this extraction of mineral content in Scotland carried on as it would be if the industry were publicly owned and operating for the public weal. I maintain that there is the strongest possible case for the utmost research into this matter, with a view to the utilisation of these deposits of ironstone in North Ayrshire.
I know the problem of the supply of coking coal, but surely we have made great strides forward in smelting techniques from the time when these ironstone mines were last operated. It is anything from 50 to 100 years ago since they were operated, and I think further extraction ought to be considered, despite the problem of coal. We must take into consideration the fact that many of these pits were operated a long while ago and extraction methods of that period do not compare with the methods employed today. In those days there was no mechanisation as we know it. We cannot allow decisions reached then to decide the issues now.
We are not getting the scrap or ore supplies which we need today. Iron ore from abroad is no solution, in my opinion, particularly if we have ore at home which can be worked. I am con-

vinced that this is worth the utmost research. I am told that there is sufficient iron content in these deposits, and surely we can have a figure to ascertain whether that is so or not.
Remember the analogy in food production. There are subsidies for this, that and the other in agriculture. I am not against that, but if we are boosting home productivity in agriculture by giving subsidies for ploughing, for calves, for hill farming, to do all that we can to save shipping space and create a better balance of payments position, surely we can use similar methods in this matter with a view to achieving the same economies. We should go into this with the utmost care, because I am certain it would mean a very great return if it could be effectively worked. It would also be of great advantage to North Ayrshire and to Scotland.
I believe we have never looked at our export and import policies in the real way. Many of the things happening today are completely ridiculous. Is it not ludicrous that scrap and ore are being taken from Europe to America to make steel, and then the steel is sent from America to Britain? But it goes even further than that. From the steel that we get we make cars that are exported to America. I have here the returns for the month ending October which show that in value the cars exported for that month came to the value of £10,657,333.
Surely in these days we should not be talking about competition among the industries within Great Britain, and instead of raw materials being taken from Europe to America, we ought to be thinking in a wider sphere altogether, namely, that of sharing raw materials among the nations. The perfecting of the technique of production has made output very much better in spite of this ludicrous position. I spoke of motor cars being exported to America, but I know of occasions when the cars sent to America were then returned to Britain because of a decreasing demand, and had to be sold in the home market. There is no one in this House prepared to justify a position such as that.
I believe if this Bill becomes law there is no possibility of the kind of development which I have tried to outline during my speech. It will leave the position in the steel industry in my constituency dreadfully insecure. That industry at


Glengarnock is splendidly sited with good rail facilities and near the Port of Ardrossan, which can take the largest ships that come in with scrap, and has everything to hand for the moving of steel. There is uncertainty and doubt at Glengarnock, and I want that cleared away.
My people are continually asking me about the future of Glengarnock and Colville's and what is likely to happen to the present prosperity being enjoyed by the people there. I cannot tell them, and if this industry is going to be thrown back to the steelmasters, there will not be any more information about what is going to happen to that industry than there is now.
If it is merely to be a question of profits deciding policy and not the effect on the lives of the men, women and children bound up with the industry, then it is going to be a bad day for my constituency, for Scotland, and indeed for Britain. We should always recognise that the well-being and prosperity of men and women and their families are bound up with this great industry. There is no greater industry in Britain than the steel industry, and I charge the Government to be careful with this industry with which they are tampering, for they should not do anything that would destroy the many lives associated with steel and the future security of the industry.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Having apparently so effectively succeeded in emptying the House the other night, I would not wish to detain it for long today, but perhaps I might elucidate the argument I was putting when I was cut short with such devastating consequences. I had suggested, in contradistinction to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), that the present nationalised undertaking, the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain, was being unduly cautious in its conception of future development.
I gave reasons why, in my judgment, this Board and this Bill should conduce to greater boldness, and I suggested that the Board had adequate powers against any possible restrictionism. I was endeavouring to meet the subsidiary argument advanced in particular by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) that there was no point in

de-nationalising this industry because capital was short and there was no one to provide new capital.
Capital is short and nationalisation can certainly give an industry a privileged claim on such capital as there is, but only at the expense of making others go shorter. It is not, however, the only method of doing it. In America preferential treatment for capital purposes is given to the steel industry by way of special tax allowances and special depreciation provisions. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of the Treasury to devise similar methods here.
I estimate that to achieve a target over the next five years of 20 million tons of steel the industry in this country needs to raise in the outside market at the maximum a sum of £25 million a year. That is not in excess of the capacity of the market. If capital is short, the answer is not nationalisation. The answer is to co-operate with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in measures to increase the supply of capital, and I should be happy to witness that spectacle.
The only other aspect of the Bill on which I would comment would be the very difficult question of boundaries. This is the boundary question, as shown in the Third Schedule. When dealing with a complicated manufacturing industry like this, the problem always arises, although it is more acute in a nationalisation Measure, where we are transferring blocks of property, than in a Measure to provide supervision. The essential purpose of the Bill is to supervise the development of the heavy steel industry. Unfortunately, no authority can do that properly unless it has some broad cognisance—I emphasise the word "broad"—of the development plans of other users of exactly the same materials. Conversely, if this is the authority responsible for development it is the authority in the best position to determine the claims of the rival claimants for the same raw materials.
That is the only purpose and the only reason why the foundries should be included in the Measure. The powers of the Board should be applied with less rigour to them than to the heavy steel firms, but that is a matter to which we shall have to turn our attention when the Bill is in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), with considerable glee, touched on the real reason for the alarm expressed by some iron founders at their inclusion in the Third Schedule. They fear his return to the position of Minister of Supply. They fear that if he comes back they, in turn, will be swept into the maw of nationalisation. When he made that point the other day, the benches behind him were swept with a great gust of exultation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should ponder this fact very carefully: in 1945, the then Labour Government had a double industrial programme; for certain industries, nationalisation; for others, development councils. In the light of history I think it will be judged that the Industrial Organisation Act, 1947, has failed, not because of any defect in the conception but because people feared that the development council was the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation.
Again, it is desirable to associate the steel industry of this country with ore development overseas. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) may not agree, but it is a fact that those responsible for ore development overseas are terrified, rightly or wrongly, of having anything to do with a nationalised undertaking, lest they be drawn into the orbit. The hon. Gentleman may dissent, but it is a fact, and that fear has to be taken into cognisance. The alarm of the founders is of exactly the same pattern.

Mr. Jack Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that overseas producers of iron ore are terrified of having as a customer the representatives of a nationalised industry?

Mr. Aubrey Jones: That is precisely what I am saying. It is a fact, and the hon. Gentleman must accept it as a fact.
When de Tocqueville wrote his "Democracy in the United States," he was impelled to do so by contemplation of the fact that throughout the centuries power and influence had been broadening down from class to class. He remarked that the more precipitately that extension had been attempted, the harder the reaction provoked in those holding power and, in the upshot, much desirable reform, instead of being furthered, had in fact been delayed.
I suggest that the lesson is essentially applicable here. My hon. Friend the

Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) expressed the other day some laissez faire opinions. Those opinions I do not share. If we are to stop short of complete nationalisation, there is only one thing to do, to retain the best qualities of private enterprise while bringing to bear upon private enterprise legitimate considerations of State. That is a reform in which I believe.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, must be warned. The more loudly they shout for nationalisation and re-nationalisation, the more certain it is that they themselves will frustrate rather than facilitate a reform which they should be the first to desire.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Unlike the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), I would not claim any expert knowledge of the steel industry. By training and profession I am an engineer, but my engineering experience is outside the iron and steel industry. My credentials for taking part in this discussion are two: the first is that in a previous life in this House I followed very intently the affairs of the nationalised industries. The second, perhaps more important, is that I now represent a well-known and important steel constituency in the North Riding. In the recent by-election, which attracted a certain amount of attention on all sides, I had the unanimous support of the iron and steel trade unions for my candidature.
I have been listening to this debate from the beginning, and I shall probably hear it through to the bitter end. I have noticed differences of opinion, not only between the two sides of the House, as one would expect, but interesting differences among supporters of the Government. There are hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for Hall Green, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and the Parliamentary Secretary, take the view that the Bill is a sort of half-way house between the extreme of nationalisation on the one hand, and unbridled competition, on the other, and that it will give almost perfect public control, nicely balanced, while avoiding bureaucratic stagnation. I hope that is not an unfair statement of the position of some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Other Conservatives, including the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), take a different view. The hon. Member stated that the greatest merit of the Bill was that it repealed the 1949 Act. To him, that was its most outstanding achievement. He was frank enough to say that the new public control Board proposed—these were not his exact words but this was the drift of his argument—was merely a bending to the clamour of current political opinion. He went on to argue—and I think it is reasonable in that context—that the less control the Board exercised the better pleased he would be. He said that the Bill could be accepted only by those who accepted private enterprise or the private monopoly principle.
I believe that this, the second Tory point of view on the Bill, is correct and certainly the honest view. The Bill is not a half-way house. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, even on the Government Front Bench, know in their heart of hearts that the Bill is not a half-way house. It is not an olive branch, because for an olive branch to succeed it must bear some kind of practical resemblance to the tree. The Bill is not a compromise but a repudiation.
No one who professes to be a constitutional democrat would deny—and I certainly do not—the right of this or any other Government to do that in which they believe. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe it is vital that the iron and steel industry should be in private hands, they are perfectly entitled to drive the Bill through. But in those circumstances they must not complain if they come into a head-on clash with the party on this side of the House. We have fought for many years for what is to us the equally valid principle that this basic industry should be publicly owned.
I do not believe in the theory of exact mandates in a representative political democracy. I do not think that a nice balancing, a nice calculation of electoral advantage on particular issues ever makes sense. When voters cast their votes it is for the broad principles and general tendencies expressed by political parties. It is well known to the people of this country, and it has been for as long as there has been an organised Labour Party, which is nearly half a century, that we

have a different conception of the organisation and nature of industry from the party opposite.
If we are looking to the future, I would put it this way: that we in the Labour Party see the industry of Britain as a mixed economy for quite a period ahead. We say that private industry still has an important and representative part to play, but, as part of the normal political evolution of this country, especially under future Labour Governments, we see the public sector steadily expanding as experience is gained in the management of publicly-owned industries. If that conception is accepted, surely hon. Gentlemen opposite must see that the public ownership of iron and steel is fundamental to it.
I would summarise my argument by saying we believe that the public ownership of iron and steel is certainly good in itself, but that it is also important as a starting point for a wider conception of community planning which future Labour Governments will of necessity have to operate. If we were to accept the so-called compromise of the Bill we should at the same time have to repudiate all those ideas which we have for the future organisation of British industry in general. Therefore, I believe that this further fight for the soul of the iron and steel industry, unfortunate as it may be from some points of view, is really a struggle of principle, even though hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may conceal that fact under the pretence that they are concerned only with the efficiency and the effectiveness of the industry on empirical grounds.
Speaking as an engineer but with no expert knowledge of iron and steel as such, and taking on its face value the argument that they are concerned merely with the efficiency and effectiveness of the industry, I want to put a question to hon. Gentlemen opposite, a number of whom are closely in touch with its problems. I do not suppose that the needs of the steel industry differ fundamentally from the common needs of British industry in general. What does British industry need today? It needs increased production, not only absolutely but relatively. We want more electrification of our industries if our production figures are to improve. We want more mechanisation. We want a concentration of production in the most effective units. We want maximum out-


put at lowest cost. We need more technical research, and education and training on the widest scale. We need suitable rewards for good management, high wages if we can get them, and security of employment.
I think that would be common ground between us. This is my question. In relation to the iron and steel industry, how will the re-introduction of the now discarded private shareholder bring about any of those things? I have great difficulty in seeing that. The engineer, the technician, the administrator and the worker in the industry, provided they are backed by the resources of the State and have the good will of Parliament, can do their job without the private shareholder again in this industry, whether he be the genuine article or just an aspect of the Prudential. I am not arguing that in some sectors of the economy the private shareholder is not still essential; of course he is; but not in the iron and steel industry these days, where technical needs, management qualities, inescapable monopoly characteristics, State policy, good or bad, and price fixing are bound to dominate.
I would not pretend that we have reached the ideal organisation as yet in any of our nationalised industries. We are only at the beginning of that road. We have been blamed for not being able to see ahead every problem connected with the nationalised industries, but we could not hope to do so in a world dealing with human beings. We are only at the beginning of the proper organisation of publicly-owned industries.
I have not read the particular work of the famous French political philosopher mentioned by the hon. Member for Hall Green, though I have read several others of his, in good English translations I must confess. Will he consider this point on the theory of political change? If nationalisation once done is accepted as common ground between the political parties, conserving and reforming parties alike—and if accepted for the coal industry, surely there is no fundamental reason why it should not be accepted for the iron and steel industry—it still leaves plenty of room for development and modifications in the light of experience. If, therefore, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had allowed the 1949 Act to settle down, if they had allowed the

Steel Corporation time to consider, to act and to report, the Government might well then have brought forward consequent changes within the general framework of nationalisation with advantage, and there might have then been room for genuine argument on methods and organisation between the two sides of the House.
Because, however, they have introduced this Bill, which is not a half-way house but a repudiation, there is no opportunity for genuine argument on methods and organisation between the two sides of the House. I believe the public would have preferred the solution of an amending Act if necessary, but one which, at the same time, did not go back on the principle of public ownership. Sir Alfred Herbert, whose letter in "The Times" a few days ago was referred to with but little praise by hon. Members opposite, is not alone in the view that it would be far better from a practical industrial point of view if the principle of public ownership of iron and steel were now to be finally accepted.
I sum up the point by saying that it would be good for everybody and would put an end to these constant political controversies in the matter of iron and steel if hon. Gentlemen opposite would do in relation to iron and steel what they have done in relation to coal, gas and electricity: that is to say, to accept the implications of the peaceful revolution of 1945. Let them steal our clothes if they wish, but they must wear them.
I was nearly interrupted a short while ago about the result of the recent Cleveland by-election. Of course, I calculated the decimal fractional change in that constituency vote just as anyone else did, and I was gratified to think that there were hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who felt that they have been saved from the electoral scaffold on the evidence of a vulgar fraction of one per cent.
But at that by-election at Cleveland, which is an iron and steel constituency, the question of nationalisation or de-nationalisation of iron and steel was not a matter of burning controversy. As I said in an interruption to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), my Conservative opponent took good care to say very little indeed about the glories of the de-nationalisation of iron and steel. The


reason he kept very quiet was either that he was a sensible man or that he was sensibly advised.
The steel workers, not only in Cleveland, but throughout the country, take the wisdom of national ownership for granted. To them, nationalisation spells security, and they fear that a return to private ownership means insecurity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) seems to scoff at that, but that was the experience of the steel workers in the past, and there is no reason—

Mr. Nabarro: I have steel works, iron foundries and so on, in my constituency, and I am closely in touch with the electorate, but there is no evidence whatever to suggest that the workers believe that any additional security is derived from nationalisation.

Mr. Palmer: All I can say is that the hon. Member's experience is different from mine.

Mr. Jack Jones: How much steel is there in Kidderminster?

Mr. Palmer: We all have different experiences and derive different conclusions from them. I, at least, have had collectively from the trade unions of the steel-working part of the Cleveland constituency a very strong request that I should oppose the Bill in the House to the best of my ability. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster has had similar or different representations from steel workers in his constituency, and how will he act upon them?

Mr. Nabarro: I have had no representations of any description from any organised workers in my constituency either for or against the nationalisation of steel since the last Election.

Mr. Palmer: I have the advantage over the hon. Member in that respect.
Apart altogether from the more general considerations, the trade unions have every reason to regard the Bill as a step backwards. In the 1949 Act, Section 39 (1, a) gave a statutory right to collective bargaining over terms and conditions of employment. It is bound to follow from the nature of the Bill that all that will now go by the board. I do not say that

the steel workers will immediately be any worse off, because they are well organised in powerful trade unions and know how to look after themselves. The fact remains, however, that by the implications of the Bill, the right given by the law of the land of statutory collective bargaining in iron and steel will be abolished.
Section 39 (1, b) of the Act is perhaps even more interesting because it deals with joint consultation on matters such as health, safety, and welfare. Again, it gives a statutory right to joint consultation and actually uses the words "safety, health and welfare." It gives also a statutory right of joint consultation on matters of everyday efficiency. But all this will go by the board when the Bill becomes law, and all that is being substituted is simply a Clause concerning the powers of the proposed new board, which is
to keep under review the arrangements for joint consultation.
Those are two very practical reasons why trade unionists and their leaders should regard the Bill, quite apart from any general considerations, as a definite step backwards.
This so-called public control in statutory form makes the worst of both worlds; and it is arguable, as is stated in "The Economist"—a paper which, as is so often remarked, is no friend of this side of the House—if, given genuine competition on private enterprise assumptions, a strengthened Monopolies Commission might not have done better than the Bill, should it become an Act. The new Board is a feeble window-dressing device to cover the dingy reality of the sale of public property to private investors, and all that the new Board will be able to do is to nag and prick, at best. It cannot plan and execute, because it lacks real power of any kind. It will, in fact, try to find out what other people are doing and then, if need be, tell them not to do it.
This is a vital industry. These words will have been used time after time and, no doubt, many people are tired of them, but the fact remains it is a vital industry for the country. I agree with hon. Members opposite at least in saying that this vital industry of ours has a right to see finality in the matter of political change. That is why I and my hon. and right hon. Friends will vote tonight against this misguided Measure. That also is why we


shall not rest content until the industry is once again firmly consolidated in national hands.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: One of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) with which I find myself in agreement was when he said that he was the first to admit that all was not right in the industry at the moment. Many hon. Members, and not only on this side of the House, will agree that national ownership has not provided the permanent answer to the problem of control in the industry.
I feel that the proposal we have made is the only possible one of the three alternatives that today face the Government. Either we can try to go back to free enterprise which certainly, unsupervised, will mean a cartel unsupervised, or we can carry on as we are with common ownership, or we can go back to free enterprise, which again will become cartelised, and try to supervise that.
Where the capital value of plant is so enormous in relation to the selling price of the product, as in the case of steel, if we do not get a supervised cartel we shall simply get the plant running down. This is because it will not be possible for sufficient money to be earned to replace and modernise it. I believe that the history of this industry before the 1930's and the history of many similarly placed industries since then have proved that.
Most hon. Members will agree that the industry is too important to remain without any form of public supervision. Much was made by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) to the effect that no one on this side of the House had tried to point to matters which were going wrong under public ownership. Several hon. Members have pointed out matters of this kind and I wish to add two further examples which I think are of importance. The essence of dynamic ownership is the kind of idea which it encourages to grow up in the industry.
Many of the great men of history have been extremely difficult to work with as they were eccentric in every way. I believe that a large commonly-owned corporation is not the right organ to create an atmosphere in which genius—and eccentric genius at that—can flourish. It is necessary that there should be alter-

natives in the same industry where this displaced genius can go if his ideas do not meet with ready acceptance.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the hon. Member think that a Holding and Realisation Agency appointed by the Treasury is the sort of medium in which eccentric genius can dwell?

Mr. Grimston: I am delighted that the hon. Member made that point, because it is the very point to which I am leading. I think it is most important in all industry today, in this country particularly, that there should be an experimental approach to these matters. We are not great mass producers in this country and never can be in relation to the productive capacity of the United States. Therefore, we need to have competing manufacturers, both those who want to standardise and try to produce large quantities of regular items at a low price and, on the other hand, those who produce tailor-made products—it is possible to have tailor-made products in steel as in anything else. That is why I believe that single ownership does not provide the answer and that the supervised form of cartel to which we are leading will prove the correct answer to the problem.
I do not think that this idea is such anathema as the Opposition would make it appear to them, because they have had plenty of experience in all the other metal industries—in aluminium, copper and so on—which have been working in precisely that way in all the five years the party opposite were in office. Although the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is not in his place, I think he would be the first to say that the national interest was fully safeguarded under the system of public supervision of private industry which operated in all those industries analagous to steel.
What I regret very much from the Opposition is the entirely unwarranted slurs which are all too often cast on the leaders of industry and on their sense of duty. It is thought that as soon as one becomes a leader in industry one must be guided by the basest of motives against the national interest. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) made that point very strongly the other day. I just do not believe it. In the first place, I believe that trade associa-


tions are fundamentally terrified of politicians, or the majority of them are. Politicians do not realise what bad politicians leaders of industry make, while leaders of industry are well aware of what bad leaders of industry politicians make. It is a matter of being mutually incompatible and it leads to a misunderstanding of the motives which activate the other side and which, in my experience, are of the best.
The Government have to indicate to the vast majority of trade associations where the Government think the national interest lies and the associations have to fall into line. It is extremely difficult sometimes to know where the national interest does lie and it is the job of the Government always to try to see where it lies. I have given one example—the matter of standardisation. Is it always right for a firm to go on standardising its product so that that product becomes cheaper and cheaper but subsequent processes become more expensive? We all know in industry that there is a very definite limit to the length to which standardisation can be carried. There is a difference of opinion as to where the national interest lies in that particular sphere.
I will give another, more difficult, case. Is it right to sting a foreign Power for as much money as one can get for a product? Is it right to sell abroad for a higher price than one sells at home? If we ask any American, he will say it is utterly wrong to do that. Yet that is the policy, for example, which the Coal Board have been following for years and it is the policy which the Socialist Administration advised the heavy industry associations of this country to follow during all their five or six years in office. There are clearly difficulties there in deciding where the national interest lies.
My case is that supervised industry is a very good compromise. It wants to do the right thing and will do so if the Government come out clearly and say where, in their view, the national interest lies. One realises very well that different Governments will have differing ideas of what at any moment is the national interest.
My second point concerns the management of companies under the Agency. We on this side of the House must take note

of the attitude of the Opposition and of what they have said about re-nationalising the industry. I do not want to engender heat over this nor to say what I think of that attitude, but we on this side of the House and the Government must take note that in that kind of atmosphere it may be very difficult, or impossible for a long time, for the Agency to dispose of its assets. It is, therefore, very important during the intervening period, which may be years, for the management of the Agency companies to be of the very best.
It will not be of the best if the Agency acts in the same way as the nationalised Corporation is bound to act—namely, as wanting to have a say in policy. I think that while companies are under the Agency, the Agency must behave as though they were a large number of private shareholders. They must not expect to be consulted on all matters of policy, but they should step in—as private shareholders always do—as an inquisition when something goes wrong; but as long as things go right, the job of the Agency is to sit back, to encourage and support the best management they can put in.
My third point concerns the position of the iron foundries. I am still very unhappy about the attitude of the Minister. He has put into the Bill six main subjects which will be supervised by the Board as they affect the iron foundries. Two of those subjects, productive capacity and prices, the Minister in his own speech said he will try to exclude. In other words, he did not think they should have been included in the first place.
Three others of those subjects, research, safety and joint consultation, are none of them suitable for supervision as regards the iron foundries themselves. They are clearly matters which either come under highly technical boards like the D.S.I.R. or something like that, or which should be included in a Bill incorporating, shall we say, the Workers' Charter for which all hon. Members on this side of the House stand. They are general industrial matters wholly unsuited to be appendages to a Bill of this kind.
That simply leaves the sixth point namely, the supervision of the raw materials of the casting industries. Those are of two kinds, pig-iron and scrap. Pig-iron is entirely produced by the industry in any case, and so the Minister has supervision of that. Does he really mean


to say that he does not trust his own bodies to allocate their own output fairly? Of course, he does not mean that, and so there is no reason on earth why the allocation of pig-iron should be used as an excuse to include iron casting in the Bill.
So far as the supervision of scrap iron is concerned, the Minister will know very well that no one has yet succeeded in supervising the allocation of scrap of any kind. There is certainly no reason for including iron castings in this Bill. Eighty per cent. of the firms covered by the Bill are iron casters. The Minister will not be able to exercise any effective supervision over them, and their inclusion will greatly increase the cost of the administration of the Bill. When he is talking to iron casters, the Minister will not be talking primarily to casting people, but to the manufacturers of a whole host of other products including motor cars, electrical plant, boots, conveyors and so on.
I believe there is the strongest possible case for excluding iron casting, and probably steel casting, from the Bill. The Minister will find that that would meet a great deal of serious criticism. I believe that the Bill is well designed for the control and the supervision of the big units of the steel industry and as such I give it a welcome.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston); particularly, of course, in those passages of his speech in which, with great knowledge, he exposed some of the more outrageous illogicalities of the Bill. I shall return later in my speech to make some observations on what the hon. Gentleman has said, but first may I say a word about the speech with which the Parliamentary Secretary opened the debate for his side?
He exhibited a great deal more mechanical fluency in the reading of his little lesson than mental agility in dealing with the points raised after the little lesson was handed to him. The few occasions when he allowed himself to be diverted from his brief made him inarticulate and uncomfortable and, as he himself admitted, somewhat bad tempered. His bad temper took the form of quoting against a number of hon. Members, including myself, observations which in fact they had never made.
However, he did say two or three times in his speech that his arguments and explanations were quite satisfactory to him; and I am quite sure, in view of the fact that he derived so much satisfaction from his observations, that he will be indifferent to the opinions of those whose opinions are less personal and more objective, and who perhaps thought that his speech, like that of the Minister on Tuesday, contained a ton of assertion for every ounce of argument.
The main burden of his speech was the same as the main burden of a number of speeches made the other day and today by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. It was that this Bill is some sort of a half-way house between private ownership and nationalisation; that a half-way house is a compromise and that everyone ought to accept the compromise. There is nothing more dangerous when one is dealing with organisational matters than a loose use of the word "compromise." A half-way house is not always a compromise. One leg of a nut-cracker is not a compromise between a nut-cracker and no nut-cracker at all, and it must not be argued that if we go half-way between two solutions we shall necessarily have integrated those two solutions, which is really what we ought to do, instead of having an uncomfortable compromise between them.
The more I read this Bill—and I have read it several times very closely indeed—the more I come to the conclusion that there is only one way in which such a Bill could have been prepared. That was for someone to sit down and put on one sheet of paper all the disadvantages of private ownership, and then to put on another sheet of paper all the disadvantages of nationalisation, and then to merge the two together, and to produce something which combines all the disadvantages of public ownership with all the disadvantages of private ownership, without any of the advantages of either. That is precisely what this Bill does.
Conservatives are always supposed to be against centralised control and in favour of de-centralisation. But this Bill—if ever it is carried out, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) that it may never be—increases the degree of central control over the industry by comparison with what it is at present, and at the


same time reduces the accountability of the central controlling authorities to the Minister and, more seriously, to Parliament.
Let us look at this Bill. The way in which under it the iron and steel companies will be bound hand and foot by outside controllers—"bureaucrats" is the word, is it not?—makes utter nonsense of the Conservative doctrine that industry ought to be allowed to run itself. It makes utter nonsense of the claim of the Minister that what he is doing in the Bill is to restore independent initiative to the companies. In fact, under this Bill the iron and steel companies' boards will be much more circumscribed in their activities than at the present time.
It will not be the board of directors, but somebody else, who will decide how their plant is to be developed and expanded. It will not be the board of directors, but somebody else, who will decide what material supplies they will get, and where they will get them. It will not be the board of directors, but somebody else, who will decide what research their firms will do; what statistics they shall publish; how they will train their technicians, and what will be their relations with their workpeople. Finally, it will not be the board of directors, but in this case two other authorities—the Iron and Steel Board and the Minister—who will decide at what prices the companies will sell the goods they make.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am trying to follow the argument of the hon. Member and I find it rather difficult to reconcile the enormous powers he is now attributing to the Board with the statement made by both his right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench that the powers of the Board are inadequate. I can understand perhaps a difference between the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) but there should be no real difference between him and the hon. Member for Watford.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, gets frightfully confused and cannot distinguish between powers and responsibilities. I said carefully, "If this Bill is carried out." One must assume that when a Government bring in a Bill they intend to carry it into law. I agree with

my hon. Friend the Member for Watford that none of this may come about—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) should remember that the Parliamentary Secretary was highly censorious of people making observations while sitting down. He had better be careful or he will earn a rebuke from his Front Bench.
We must deal with the Bill as it is. We cannot guess at what the Government will do with their silly Bill when they have got it, if they ever get it. I am discussing the Bill as it is, and that is not at all inconsistent with saying that it may well be that in fact none of these things may happen. But let us look at it.
Is this Bill really restoring independent initiative to the companies? Is this really de-centralisation when they will have no independent initiative to make decisions about plant development or about raw material supplies or research, statistics or training, no independent initiative to decide their labour relations or the price at which the goods can be sold. Does the hon. Member for St. Albans think that a Board so circumscribed is a place where we may breed eccentric genius?
The only fields in which the boards will have independent initiative under this Bill are that they will be able to decide on their own account and without reference to the Minister, the Iron and Steel Board or the Holding and Realisation Agency, what should be the colour of the paint on the walls of their boardrooms, whether they will have their meetings in the morning or afternoon and what vintage of port they shall drink after lunch. It is pure hypocrisy to take away from the separate boards of companies the right to make decisions on buying, selling, technical development, labour relations, and so on, and then talk about restoring independent initiative to these companies.
I want to add to the many good things which have been said on both sides of the House about the problem of capital and technical development in the industry. Over and over again on both sides of the House it has been said, not least by the Parliamentary Secretary today, that this is the key question, the great problem which faces the industry over the next few years.
Of course, this is so. The selling price of steel enters so widely into the general price structure, and it influences the price of so many other commodities, that there is no other industry, except perhaps coal, of which it may be said that our ability to produce cheaply over the whole field of production depends upon the efficiency of this one industry. There has been a sellers' market in steel for a long time, and prices have not mattered so much. But before long they will once again matter a great deal, and in fact in some sectors of industry we are already finding difficulty in selling metal goods because of their high price.
In other countries, steel industries are being built up, some virtually from scratch, with the most up-to-date and efficient lay-outs and equipment. In Western Germany, which is the prime example, there are millions of tons of new capacity, and nearly all of it is of the highest standard. By contrast, we start with the handicap of having a great deal of our iron and steel industries wrongly located, apart from the actual inefficiency of the plant. We have pig-iron plants wrongly located in relation to their sources of supply of coal, limestone, ore and scrap, and finishing plants wrongly located in relation to their sources of supply of coal and pig-iron.
We start with the further handicap that the older part of the industry—and notwithstanding recent developments that still represents a considerable fraction of our total capacity—was so seriously neglected in the years between the two wars that most of it is badly laid out and badly equipped. The principal task of the British steel industry in the next few years is to put that condition right. We can lower our costs only if we so develop our iron and steel industry as to reduce a great deal of unnecessary travel, both travel of materials from source to the plant and between plants, and inter-operational travel within the plants themselves.
Moreover, some of our older plants need considerable capital expenditure to re-organise them on a flow basis, so that the waste heat from each operation is used to supply part of the fuel for the next operation, and in order to avoid unnecessary heating, cooling and reheating, which is the most costly and wasteful part of the whole process. To do that

it will be necessary to give the most careful consideration, on technical grounds, to the future development programme of the industry.
But that is precisely what cannot happen under this Bill. I beg hon. Members to pay attention to this vital defect in the Bill. There should be the most careful consideration on technical grounds of the re-organisation of the industry, but that will not happen under this Bill because it is just at this point of future technical development that under this Bill four separate cooks come in and start stirring the same broth.
First, the Iron and Steel Board will have something to do with it under the provisions of Clause 4. Secondly, there are the individual companies themselves, who have the right to put forward schemes for development. Thirdly, there is the Minister, as always with the Treasury at the back of him, who will have a hand in the business. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said, the projects which the Minister will be laying out will be quite different from the projects which the companies will be laying out.
The difference is a simple one. The Minister made it clear on Tuesday that the board of each company will put forward development projects on which it thinks that it can make a good profit. But some development projects, as we have heard from both sides of the House, and not least from the Minister, though they are very much in the nation's interest, may be uneconomic. They may be inevitably unprofitable though we shall need them for defence or for export expansion, or some other reason. It is these unprofitable ones for which the Minister will have the responsibility. I suppose that is what a Conservative Government call looking after the nation's finances. They let private enterprise take on all the profitable developments and leave the unprofitable developments to be carried out by the taxpayer.
I have referred to these three cooks stirring the broth of capital development—the companies, the Iron and Steel Board and the Minister. This is a bad enough and complicated enough situation as it is, with all these getting in each other's way, but the fourth cook who comes into this broth-stirring is the worst cook of all. Here I am grateful for reinforcement by the views expressed by


the hon. Member for St. Albans, who said very much the same himself.
The fourth cook is an untechnical and unqualified cook, and that is the Holding and Realisation Agency. In paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, it is laid down that the Agency will have the normal powers of shareholders. That means, of course, that they have the final say, and that they will say the final "Aye" or "Nay" to any scheme of capital development, in the way in which the hon. Member for St. Albans pointed out. This Holding and Realisation Agency, which has the last word in deciding whether the company shall carry on technical development or not, will not consist of technicians. It will consist of accountants and other finance men.
Clause 16 (2) of the Bill lays down that the chairman and members of the Agency are to be appointed by the Treasury, and I think it is reasonable to assume from that that the members of this Agency will be, not steel men but money men—as I put it elsewhere, not processors of ingots but jugglers of figures—and there lies the real danger. All my business experience goes to show that almost the worst way in which one can develop an industry technically is to leave the work of technical development not to the technicians but to the accountants. I dare say that the experience of other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will reinforce my own view.
The plain fact of the matter is that this Bill, if it is passed, will put the industry into a turmoil—not for one year or two years, or even three years, but for very many years to come. We have already been told by the Government that these proposals may take some years to complete, and that means that the question whether they are ever completed at all depends upon what happens at the next General Election, and that, in turn, means that the industry is, until then and perhaps after then, to be left in a state of complete uncertainty.
It is the party here represented by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which always says, "Leave well alone." In industry today, they say, "Leave well alone." They are the ones who always profess to believe that the peace of mind of those who have the difficult job of running an important industry should not be disturbed by political action taken on

purely doctrinaire grounds. Yet what the Government are doing in this Bill is precisely that—precisely disturbing the peace of mind of those who are running this industry by taking political action which has no technical or economic purpose at all but which is carried out on purely doctrinaire grounds. On that account alone, we on this side of the House are well justified in resisting the passage of this illogical Bill.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I hope I may be forgiven if I do not follow directly upon the speech of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), as there are many of my hon. Friends wishing to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, time is short, and I propose, in the course of a very brief speech, only to allude to one part of the Bill.
In Clause 3 (3) of the Bill, the duties and responsibilities of the Iron and Steel Board are defined, and, in the Third Schedule, in paragraph 4, reference is made to—
The casting of iron or steel by any process.
A good deal has been said in the debate as to the wisdom, or otherwise, of including ironfounders within the purview of this Measure, and I must say, at the outset, that I am broadly in sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston).
The Minister made reference in his initial speech to the fact that approximately 75 per cent. of the ironfounders of the United Kingdom had expressed assent for inclusion within the directions that may be given by the Iron and Steel Board. That may be so, if the total representation of the ironfounders is taken to be that of the Council of Iron-foundry Associations, but I very much doubt—and I say this with great respect to my right hon. Friend—whether the Council of Ironfoundry Associations is, in fact, in any way representative of the ironfounders of the United Kingdom as a whole. It may be true that the Association broadly represents three-quarters of the firms who have foundries and forging businesses solely for the sale of their products to other firms, but the Council of Ironfoundry Associations, so far as I am aware, has no responsibility in respect of hundreds, if not thousands, of engineering


firms which have private or tied foundries of their own, for producing castings merely for domestic and internal uses.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): It is a question of fact. I have not got HANSARD in front of me, but what I did say was that the members of the Council of Ironfoundry Associations account for 75 per cent. of the output of the foundry products of this country. That includes the output from tied foundries and of firms with foundries in this country.

Mr. Nabarro: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, but, with very great respect, I would say to him that I have spent the whole of my industrial life in the engineering industry, and have been for many years in close contact with iron foundries and their work. I doubt whether that is an accurate statement of fact. My information is that the 75 per cent. figure to which my right hon. Friend referred does not take full account of the innumerable castings and forgings produced by engineering companies for their own domestic use.
While I am diametrically opposed to the view expressed by Sir Alfred Herbert in a letter to "The Times" on 24th November, 1952—and we must regard any statement he makes as being a fairly authoritative one, to which importance must be attached—about keeping the iron and steel industry in a nationalised form, I am very much in sympathy with some of the views he expressed about including tied foundries within the provisions of this Bill. After all, my right hon. Friend knows that I am being very accurate when I say that, if one has to put into this Bill in the Third Schedule, the words—
The casting of iron or steel by any process
it literally means that anybody in the United Kingdom who has an engineering business and owns a sandbox, pours a little ferrous metal and makes rough castings and rough forgings and has facilities for doing a little rough fettling, whether he produces only a dozen castings a year or not, if that definition stays in the Bill, that undertaking must be brought within the provisions for the control to be exercised by the Iron and Steel Development Board. That is the difficulty which we have to surmount.
I am advised that there are approximately 2,800 privately-owned iron foundries in the United Kingdom selling their products to other firms. There is an unspecified but large number of tied foundries in the United Kingdom. The total production of all cast iron in the United Kingdom today is in the order of 3,500,000 tons, and that represents finished iron castings. The production of the steel industry, of course, is in the order of 16 million ingot tons, and only on one occasion in the last few years has there been any complaint of the allocations of the common raw materials between the steel industry and the iron foundries. The common raw materials are pig-iron and scrap.
That controversy took place some months ago, and, as a result of the intervention of my right hon. Friend, the dispute was settled amicably and without difficulty. In the unlikely event of any similar difficulty arising in the future, I can see no reason at all why that narrow issue of the allocation of raw materials between the foundries, on the one hand, and the steelmakers, on the other, cannot be settled by one or two members of the Iron and Steel Development Board without this oppressive provision of bringing all foundries, all forgers, except drop forgers, and all rolling production throughout the country, within the purview of this Bill. Iron foundries, as a whole, are a heterogeneous mass of small firms with a few large exceptions. If one goes to the Black Country, which is very close to my constituency, one finds hundreds of small iron-founding firms there.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They are all duplicated.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the competition of these small foundries has in the past been very valuable, has tended to give an individual service to engineers, and, by and large, has provided castings at a low price.
I say to my right hon. Friend that I believe, as a result of long experience of these matters within the engineering industry, that we shall have far more trouble and difficulty as a result of trying to include all the iron foundries and all the forging processes as well, than if we left them out altogether. Personally, I think that the Council of Ironfoundry


Associations are asking for general support of the Bill, and in their letter of 21st November, 1952, circulated to the principals of all iron-foundry firms in the country, they confirm that, by saying:
The Council as the representative national body of the iron-founding industry now asks for the support of all iron-founding firms for its policy of endeavouring to secure the vital interests of the industry within the terms of this Bill, in the belief that the unity of the industry is its greatest source of strength for the future.
The Associations are therefore backing the Minister in this matter; they want the foundries brought in. I think it will cause much trouble if they are brought in, in the present terms of the Bill. I beg the Minister, between now and the Committee stage, carefully to consider the following amendments which will meet his case generally for a Measure of control for the iron foundries and which would, I believe, dispose of many of the objections and difficulties that have been related so far.
Firstly, there ought to be two members on the Board representing iron-founding interests. Secondly, the Board should have no restrictive powers affecting the development of iron foundries except in cases where such development is called for in an amount of more than £250,000 as an aggregate of plant and buildings. For anything less than that amount, the Board should not have any degree of control at all. Such an arrangement would, of course, restrict the use of such powers to major schemes alone.
Thirdly, there should be no control by the Board over any foundry activities where the output of castings is less than 5,000 tons a year or £250,000 in value, whichever is the less. I have assumed here that a ton of metal would be worth about £50. The figures may not be exactly appropriate, but that is approximately the limitation of control which I would advocate.
Fourthly, no tied foundry which is part of an engineering business, that is, a foundry which is producing castings or forgings or rolling purely for departmental end use, should be included within the provisions of the control of the Board unless its total output is more than 5,000 tons per annum.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Ellis Smith rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I promised to be extremely brief. I have no doubt that we shall have ample opportunity for discussing all these proposals in the Committee stage.
Fifthly, I suggest that there should be no extension of the existing iron castings price control arrangements. I deduce from my right hon. Friend's speech that he is sympathetic to that point of view.
Although the hon. Member for Reading, South derided the use of the word "compromise," I conceive that in the controversy which has arisen in regard to the iron foundries that recourse might be a valuable one.

Mr. Mikardo: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misquote me. I did not deride the use of the word "compromise." What I said was that if we are to have one, then let us have one. I derided things which were said to be compromises when they were not.

Mr. Nabarro: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. What I am proposing now is a compromise in order to get round these difficulties. I think that if we can compromise on the lines of the five points I have mentioned, it will resolve most of these difficulties with iron founders and forgers. Apart from the question of iron foundries, I commend this Bill to the House. I think it is a masterful solution to a long-standing problem, and I hope it will have a rapid passage to the Statute Book.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: As a result of the General Election campaign I expected, before this Bill was published, to enter this debate in order to fight for State supervision as against private enterprise. In my constituency there are a number of consumers of various forms of steel, including a large ship-building industry which is a heavy consumer of steel plate. During the election campaign I was confronted with repetitions of speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and with broadcasts claiming that State supervision of industry would destroy initiative, would mean a monopoly, a price structure for the consumers of steel. All this was said by my opponent. He fought hard for private enterprise.
There is a famous shipyard in my constituency, the firm of John Brown, and there are several large foundries and factories, all of whom say that they want free enterprise in steel. But I have not heard one speech from the benches opposite defending free enterprise steel. From 1949 to the date of the General Election whenever this subject—State control, or the clammy hand of Whitehall, as it was called—was mentioned, it was vigorously decried. I suppose that the hand of the Minister of Supply is not clammy.
It is proposed that through the Board there should be some comprehensive supervision. For the greater part of my life I have worked on the engineering side in industry. I have actually been a supervisor, even though only in a minor capacity. I have also worked under supervisors. My right hon. Friend the former Minister of Supply says that this supervision is a sham. As I say, I have worked under supervisors, but had their supervision been a sham they would not have remained supervisors for very long.
The Government must make up their minds whether they are passing a Bill to introduce State supervision over a larger sector of the iron and steel industry than that proposed under the Bill of 1949. Are right hon. Gentlemen opposite doing that? Is this Bill to extend State supervision? Are we to have more State control or less? That is the question to which I would like an answer so that I may tell friends of mine who are small manufacturers. I was arguing with one of them at the week-end and he said, "Why, these people are worse than you." When I seemed to be getting the better of the argument, he said, "Well, you started it." That man is under the impression that the present Government are carrying on the supervision and making it wider. There we were, and I could not fight for free enterprise because I do not believe in it.
I have heard speech after speech from the other side, including that of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) in which hon. Members have said, "We cannot go back to free enterprise." Why did not the hon. Member for St. Albans continue and use the words of the Prime Minister and say that we must keep the clammy hand of Whitehall on the steel industry? But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham

(Mr. Sandys) is Minister of Supply and it would never do for the Prime Minister to describe that right hon. Gentleman's hand as clammy. The hand goes much further in this Bill, and I am frankly amazed that the party opposite should introduce a Bill that they themselves, in denial of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) when he says it is a sham, argue is a positive control over the iron and steel industry.
I have to consider the problems of my constituents who are engaged in the industry, and I am very worried about Clause 9 of this Bill. Will the shipbuilding industry be free to import ships' plates, or forgings or rolled steel from any producer it desires? Or must the importation of these raw materials of the shipbuilding industry be subject to the Board and the Minister? We on the Clyde want to know that. Will the shipbuilding industry be subject to the approval of the Minister when it wishes to import ships' plates or sections or girders required from sources other than the British steel industry?
I was rather worried when I heard one hon. Member opposite say that when this Bill is an Act he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would get into conversation with the steel units of the Schuman Plan and form a European cartel. If that takes place the shipbuilding industry may find that when they go to the Schuman Plan units for their ships' plates the prices are tied up with the prices charged for ships' plates by the industry in this country.
Then, according to Clause 4 any steel manufacturer who wishes to develop new processes or to extend his plant has to consult the Board. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply would give me his attention because this is most important from the point of view of the consumers and that of many large motor manufacturers. Will the British Motor Corporation—the Austin and Morris motor company—be free to set up their own forging plants without consulting the Minister? Will they be free to build their own rolling mill, just as the Ford Motor Company have integrated their motor industry. Can new entrants come into the industry? I may be wrong, but as far as I can see this Clause denies the right to any body of men to form a company for the production of steel


covered by the Third Schedule of the Bill without the consent of the Minister or the Board. That seems to me to deny the right of free entry into the industry.
In view of what I have said I was rather surprised that, as it seems to me, the Government are determined to tie the industry up into a monopoly and that they are going to invoke the Monopoly Commission under one Clause of this Bill. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) suggested that the shares of this industry could be taken up by pension funds and trust funds. As far as my knowledge of these matters goes, I am under the impression, and I believe it is true of my own union, that these funds can only be invested in what are called gilt edged securities. For the life of me I cannot see our pension funds being invested in a competitive industry where the shareholders and the company are liable to go bankrupt.
We heard speeches during the election campaign and we heard some today to the effect that, with the play of competition, even efficient firms can go bankrupt. Will the firms go bankrupt under the Realisation Agency that is to be set up, and which has no time limit? The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale thinks that probably they will not, because under a Clause of this Bill the Realisation Agency can actually go guarantor for the debts of a company. It can buy the shares, it can close one industry and it can amalgamate industries. I do not want to deal with the aspects of this matter with which my right hon. Friend dealt with so ably, but what is the position of this Realisation Agency with regard to the stock of these independent companies?
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale obviously thinks that the stock is pretty safe in their hands, because he suggests that pension funds and trust funds should be invested in the industry. On this side of the House we have a suspicion, which I think is very well founded, and there is grave suspicion in the country which I also think is very well founded, that in the circles in which they move hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always consider that the interest of the investing element in the community somehow or other must always coincide with the national interest. From their point of view there is very seldom a clash between the national interest and the

national interest as seen from the point of view of the party opposite.
I feel that, if these interests clash, then the interest of maintaining value in invested capital in steel will be protected even at the expense of the national interest. When this Realisation Agency with its rights of shareholders and the Board as supervisor of the industry to see that it maintains effective production meet, I dread to think what will happen. They might meet in a similar situation to that which arose in the case of Baldwins Ltd., in the 1930s, when the directors were on the platform and the chairman made his speech. The shareholders had seen their shares come down from 28s. to 1s. 3d. The meeting ended in pandemonium with the shareholders throwing their papers and books at the directors on the platform. We do not want to see scenes like that in the board room of this supervisory Board.
What is the good of talking about integrating the industry and accusing us of failing to do so? Our Act may have been faulty in some respects. We might have spread the net wider, but this Bill is splitting the industry in the worst way that it could be split. It is dividing responsibility for the efficient organisation of the industry and the responsibility to see that the industry provides us at the most economical price possible the best quality raw material for our other industries. It is dividing that responsibility with the responsibility that holders of stocks and shares expect to exercise in their capacity as holders of stocks.
As one who has worked in the engineering trade all my life until 12 months ago, I have seen many rows in the factories because of this clash of interests between those of us who were trying to run the factory efficiently and the chartered accountants and others who were only interested in the financial returns, and who frustrated us at every turn when we tried to do the things we wanted to do. When things were flourishing they used to tell us that there was no need to take a certain course of action because the industry was making a good return. When we started losing money we could not do it because we were broke. That was the story that I heard in small and large factories between the wars. I am very much afraid that with this splitting of the industry this clash will come again.
One hon. Member opposite—I believe it was the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale—said yesterday that it was all right to nationalise the industry in 1930 when it was broke, but to nationalise it when it was flourishing was a tragic mistake, and heads were nodded in support of that statement. Do hon. Members opposite really believe that when an industry is going downhill it should be nationalised, and that if by some fortuitous turn of events it prospers we should de-nationalise it, and then if some misfortune occurs and it starts going downhill we should nationalise it again? I was amazed when the hon. Gentleman said that this House should de-nationalise and nationalise according to the state of the industry. I am afraid that when we go to the country—and I hope it will be soon—[Laughter.] I do indeed—

Mr. Nabarro: What was your majority?

Mr. Bence: The Parliamentary Secretary pointed his finger at my right hon. Friend and said, "You do not believe a word you are saying." I have talked with a good many consumers of steel, such as engineering employees and so on, not only in my constituency but in others as well, and I say that as a result of the propaganda on nationalisation of the party opposite in the last five years those friends of mine will never believe a word from that party in future.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. R. Jennings: I am primarily concerned with paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule. Speaking as a representative of the City of Sheffield, I must say that the iron founders have expressed grave apprehension, and I want to appeal to my right hon. Friend to exclude the iron founders from this Schedule. The words in this paragraph,
The casting of iron or steel by any process
are far too wide, and I feel that the iron founders have got a good case.
I have many other protests from Sheffield, and they are from the general engineering people. I should like to quote a letter from a firm who manufacture paper-making machines and who have contracts in Canada and America worth millions of pounds for the manufacture of paper-making machines. This letter states that paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule,

in our opinion, need not have been in the Bill at all, as it relates to the processing by moulding, of iron and steel, and brings a measure of control into an engineering business, and I believe the bulk of the foundries in this country are part of engineering establishments.
I believe there is a great deal in that case, and I think that the iron founders have a great deal of apprehension. The Minister has said that there will be no day-to-day control of iron foundries as such. That might be so, but there is the party opposite who would do anything at any time. If they ever got back into power they might interfere with the day-to-day control of the iron foundries without even bringing the matter before this House.

Mr. Jack Jones: Mr. Jack Jones rose—

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Gentleman always interrupts me when I speak. He must like doing it.

Mr. Jones: I want to clear up one point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Incidentally, his belated appearance has been noted, and perhaps it will be noted in Sheffield, too. We have definitely not made any statement that the iron foundries would be taken over. What my right hon. Friend has said is that when we are returned to power we should have to take into consideration any virtues there may be in the suggestions put forward by the present Government.

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to refer to my belated appearance. He may like to know that I am here tonight against my doctor's orders, and it is because of my great desire to support this Bill that I have come here today.

Mr. Jones: I should like to express, on behalf of all of us on this side of the House, the hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a quick recovery, and I regret that I mentioned his belated absence. I accept his explanation.

Mr. Jennings: For the last two weeks I have been forbidden to come here. I intended not to come, but I felt that in the interests of the industries in Sheffield I ought to make a bold effort to come here and do what I can this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), who has been doing a great deal of work in the last fortnight interviewing people here for me, will confirm


what I have said, and I am much obliged to him for what he has done.
These iron founders undoubtedly have a good case, and I should like to ask the Minister whether between now and the Report stage he will consider the exclusion of the iron foundries from the wide scope of this paragraph in the Third Schedule. In addition, will he consider the exclusion of engineering firms to which I have referred, such as paper-making machine firms?
I believe that the effective control which he will get if they are included will be very small. It will cost a fair amount of money to try to exercise this control, and I think that the Board which my right hon. Friend is setting up should be strong enough to be able to control the foundries in the way that they think is right. If he cannot exclude them, I feel that the iron founders have a perfect right of representation on the new Iron and Steel Board, and I am glad that the Minister is prepared to give way on that, but I do beg him to reconsider paragraph 4 in the Third Schedule between now and the Report stage.
I have been one of the greatest supporters of the de-nationalisation of iron and steel, and I am very glad that this Bill has been brought forward. I shall go into the Lobby and vote in support of it tonight. I would go in with better grace if I had some hope on the points which I have asked the Minister to consider. Nevertheless, this Bill is, in my opinion, what the country has been expecting. It is part of our Election programme and we are doing the right thing in introducing it. I commend it to the House. All the criticism that we hear from the other side is purely from a party political point of view. We on this side of the House are taking the national interest into account. I commend the Minister for his courage in bringing forward this Bill at the earliest possible opportunity.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: It must give some real satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government to wind up this debate tonight. About 16 or 17 years ago I recall listening with great interest when he expounded to the Tory Party what was then a tentative political philosophy, which we dubbed

"the middle road." At that time we thought there was some hope that he might come across to this side of the House. But I think his environment proved too strong for him. I always felt that his "middle road" philosophy was not so much the product of his intellectual processes as the fear of Socialism. As I listened to the Minister of Supply and his Parliamentary Secretary I felt that they were under some disability in having to expound this philosophy, which the Tory Party has now embraced after 17 years' propaganda by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
If the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply felt uncomfortable in their exposition of this Bill, let me say that it is very difficult to pursue a course which avoids sin on the one side and virtue on the other. By that I mean the sin of private enterprise and the virtues of Socialism. This Bill is a product of fear. There is no intellectual conviction about it. The Government are giving the substance of the industry to private enterprise, that is, to the old steel barons, for this Bill restores the steel industry to its former steel barons, and the Board which has been provided for in the Bill is just the confectionery, because although it is true that the Board are assigned responsibilities under the Bill, they have very little executive powers.
Democracy has wrestled with a good many barons in the political history of this country. I feel confident that democracy will eventually get rid of the industrial barons just as it stopped the political barons from playing such a major part in our history. We have tried the coal barons—who left us in South Wales, after taking the cream both above and underneath, with the skimmed milk—and we have tried the steel barons, who failed us. I would refer the Government to the opinions expressed by two leading industrialists between the wars, Lord Nuffield and Sir William Firth. We have in their declarations precisely what they thought of those who were responsible for the conduct of the steel industry between the two wars.
I want to refer to this contraption which is flamboyantly described in the Bill as the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency. What is this organisation?


Am I being unfair if I say that this Agency is nothing more than a pawnbroker? By this Bill the Government places the iron and steel industry in pawn, in the hands of this particular pawnbroker, and the only way the property can be redeemed from pawn is, as the Minister says, by this Holding Agency getting a fair price.
In a speech through which seeped the psychology of private enterprise, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers)—I am giving a précis of his statement—said that it would be possible to dispose of the properties provided that they have the attractiveness of cheap prices. If the prices were cheap there would be a sale. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has quoted the "Financial Times." The other day the "Observer" took a very dim view of this forced sale—as it will be—of the properties now held by the Iron and Steel Corporation.
It is inevitable that if there is to be any sale by this Agency, two things will happen. Those in the market will buy the most efficient steel undertakings and the residue will be left in the hands of the Holding Agency. I have a sneaking feeling that the whole purpose inspiring this arrangement is the desire of the Government to set up a spurious relationship between private enterprise on the one side and public enterprise, as expressed by the Holding Agency, on the other—in order to produce arguments that public enterprise is totally unable to hold its own with private enterprise in the steel industry. That will be the contention of the Government in the immediate days ahead.
The Parliamentary Secretary will understand what is meant by pride of regiments. He will understand how important it is to build up the morale of the troops and that there is nothing like building up the morale of the troops by inculcating the pride of regiment. That is accepted. But can anyone imagine any South Wales steel worker or any other steel worker having any pride in this organisation, which will be their employing authority—an organisation foisted upon the industry which has no part in it except to dispose of properties? Is there anything in the nature of pride of regiment about this contraption? Of course there is not.
As a distinguished member of this House once said—applying his words to

this Holding Agency—it has neither pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity in the steel industry and we cannot possibly hope to get the production we need from a lot of extraneous organisation which is being imposed upon the industry by such contraptions as the Iron and Steel Holding Agency on the one hand, and a Board which, in the language of the Bill itself, is assumed to be extraneous to the industry. The Bill talks of the Board as though it were something outside the industry and not part of it.
As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) knows, I have a very large steel undertaking in my constituency. The workers there were delighted when the transfer of that great undertaking took place from private to public ownership. The same people are dismayed by the impending fate to be inflicted on the industry by this Government. Here we have a body of people who are behind us in our resolve to go into the Lobby and vote against this Bill, to fight it in Committee and, if possible, prevent its passage by every constitutional means available to us. When we get back to power we shall return to the fight of removing from the industry those barons who have for far too long besmirched the industrial history of this country.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) with considerable interest and I was mystified by his reference to these strange people the steel barons. I hope he does not include me among them, although it is true that I have been engaged in the industry for many years.

Mr. Moyle: I was referring to the owners and not to the managers.

Mr. Robson Brown: Thank you very much. I have spent 30 years in the industry and I feel that on certain points I have special knowledge and experience. Both the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and I trod the floor of the mills. We respect the knowledge of the hon. Member for Rotherham, his experience of the industry and also his moral courage on political questions, and I hope that one day we shall see him on the Steel Board.
A few days ago the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison),


speaking in the debate on the Address, said this—and it has been echoed and reechoed again throughout the whole of this debate:
In the 20's and 30's there was pessimism and defeatism in the steel industry—a persistent fear of producing too much … that what was necessary was to diminish the units of production, to rationalise what remained, and then we should have a more efficient but a smaller steel industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1951; Vol. 507, c. 611.]
The right hon. Gentleman no doubt genuinely believes that this was the position, but in fact the attitude of the steel makers of Great Britain throughout the whole of that period was directly the opposite, because between 1920 and 1939 they lifted the output of ingot steel from 9 million to 13,250,000 tons—an increase of 31 per cent. Where on earth can hon. Members see any evidence of restriction in that? Up to 1932, the British steel manufacturers had no tariff protection of any sort from steel dumping from the Continent. They had to put up a tremendous fight for orders for every ton of steel they could get together in every part of the world. It was a tooth and nail fight—and I know because I had to take part in it.
The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central Mr. Manuel) asked the Minister about the future importation of steel plates and forgings. I say to him that I hope the time will never come again when we shall be faced with the dumping of foreign steel in this country. I hope that we in this country will always be able to maintain our efficiency at such a level that such a thing never occurs.
What is more remarkable—and the House and the country should know it—is that in the years 1929 to 1937 the world output of ingots and castings increased by 11 per cent., while in this country during the same period our output was increased by 35 per cent. In the same period the output of the United States of America dropped by 10 per cent. This will no doubt surprise many hon. Members who are full of the knowledge of the go-getting and hard-driving methods of the Americans. In my opinion it is to the credit of the British steel makers that they held their own before the war in the way they did, in spite of the fact that during the 15 years the average return on capital in our steel

industry was no more than a meagre 2 per cent.
During the same years great expansion schemes were carried out, and I regret that the Opposition are never prepared to mention these facts. In the same years, 1932 to 1939, when there was a 40 per cent. drop in world demand for steel—I repeat that: a 40 per cent. drop in world demand for steel—and when the steel makers of this country were facing dreadful conditions and when the workers were suffering trials and tribulations second only to those of the miners in the coalfields, what happened? Was there any evidence of reaction and restriction? The Lancashire Steel Corporation in 1932 erected the largest wire rod mill in the world, the competitive efficiency of which is today second to none.
Stewarts and Lloyds have been mentioned. They came from Scotland to Corby and built what was then and still remains the outstanding integrated tube plant anywhere in the world, including the United States, and they put Great Britain in the front of the world in the tube trade. Whitehead at Newport built three or four narrow strip mills at that time—all at a time when the world demand for steel was down by 40 per cent. and when the financial returns on capital in the industry was no more than a meagre 2 per cent. Take the case of Richard Thomas, of Ebbw Vale. These may sound repetitive and monotonous statements, but they prove powerful arguments, for this firm built the greatest combined steel works and strip mill in Europe.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Of course that is true, but at the same time we had men walking the streets in Jarrow.

Mr. Robson Brown: I had intended to omit reference to Jarrow, Motherwell and Merthyr because of the lack of time, but I must say one thing very clearly. We cannot attach industries and communities to one place for ever. The force of economic circumstances often means, sad as it may be, that the industry must go to where it can survive and prosper. Jarrow is a sad case, and there were many other sad cases in the country. It was no fault of anybody in any of the industries; there was a great international slump of the most


gigantic kind ever experienced. Palmers' steel works in Jarrow was completely out of date and the site was definitely unsuitable for the building of any large integrated plant. The same answer must be given about Merthyr and Motherwell.
I will say this, too; both sides of the House today will accept much greater responsibility for the human beings of such towns. I was very much impressed by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon; he dealt effectively with many points on which I should liked to have touched, but there was one thing in particular which he said—that he was looking at the human interests behind the industry. I say that the cold statistics, output and figures of this kind, are no longer sufficient; we have to go beyond these to the communities and the homes of the people who depend on the industry.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is perfectly true that it was not the fault of Palmers' Steel Works. It was Steel House which prevented the new integrated steel works being erected in Jarrow at a time when 90 per cent. of the men were unemployed.

Mr. Robson Brown: The integrated steel works was needed, and it was developed at Consett. It was more suited to Consett and, geographically, it was at the nearest point that we could get to it.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robson Brown: Let us be perfectly frank. In the old days there was a good deal of bumping and boring, to use a racing expression. It was because of that experience that we are having the type of Bill that we are discussing today. It was a Conservative Government in 1932 that came to the rescue of the steel industry and saved many companies from bankruptcy and the men who were working in them from unemployment.
It is remarkable that all through the speeches which we hear from the Opposition, indicting the steel makers for the position between the wars, it is clear that hon. Gentlemen have never bothered to mention, or perhaps do not even know, that good steel prices meant good steel wages. Nobody knows that better than the hon. Member for Rotherham.

Mr. Moyle: It is not the steel barons that are in the dock but the powers that they have had in the past that we opposed.

Mr. Robson Brown: I am coming to that point now. So far from the steel makers being reactionary in the past, the reverse is the case. An hon. Member said that we were very slow and dilatory in taking action on the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I will tell the House what we did. In a very short time we chose, not any independent Chairman, but the most powerful man we could get our hands on. Sir Andrew Duncan. He proved a very wise leader. He may not have been wise all the time, and sometimes he may have listened to the wrong voices, but in the end our choice was justified. We constructed an independent federation, and the record since that time has been one of wholehearted co-operation within the industry, and with successive Governments. That is why at the outbreak of the war the Government were able to take over a united and efficient steel industry. As the Minister said the other afternoon, we have had control of the right and proper kind for 20 years, yet here we are, in 1952, still arguing about it.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) quoted a statement that I made. As Minister of Supply at the time of nationalisation, and in the period before it, when he had the responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman did everything he could to aid the development plans of the industry. What he did not understand and appreciate was that the fear and the threat of nationalisation held those plans up on the drawing board and that in the office of every company there was consultation going on, from one body to another, before the plans could be approved. The right hon. Gentleman can check up with the members of the Steel Board, because they and the steel industry know the truth of what I say.
Another point is about the intention of the nationalised board to go in for regional organisation on a comprehensive basis. Doubt was thrown on that, but I can only refer the House to what was said by Mr. J. H. Jolly, the Chairman of Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold's, on 19th September, 1952. The country has not sufficiently realised that the steel


men, in spite of threats of nationalisation, pressed forward with their huge development projects, and there is no doubt that the greatest development of them all has been the amazing steel plant at Margam, the inspiration of Mr. Ernest Lever, who conceived the first plans for it even during the war. He is the kind of man who is responsible for the steel industry today. The industry is in good hands, with men like that. This is the kind of control which has carried the steel industry over the last 20 months during which we have succeeded in producing more than 20 million tons, not because of nationalisation, but in spite of it.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must listen very carefully to the next thing I want to say. This House should never forget that tonnage output alone is not enough. This must be linked with efficiency and low cost. My fundamental objection to nationalisation is that its centralisation is absolutely stifling. It means loss of efficiency, bureaucratic control and, in the end, slowly but seriously, an increase of costs. I would refer hon. Members to the thoughtful document which has been produced by the late Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board. He has very interesting things to say on this particular point.
We have only to look at the mining industry. It is faced with an increase in costs, not only because of increasing wages of the miners, but because of the serious increase in the cost of mining. Every mining engineer knows perfectly well what I am driving at. Most of the pits in the country are working at a loss. It is this very state of affairs that we are striving to prevent happening in the steel industry.

Mr. Fernyhough: Who is responsible for it?

Mr. Robson Brown: There is only one way to efficient steel production at low cost, and that is by independent companies setting the pace for each other, with individual executives watching every move in the game—costs, selling prices, output, efficiency, every element—and each company being judged annually and in public upon its performance. Balance sheets can be studied and the public can see the progress and the performance of the industry, which is open

to the judgment and the criticism of shareholders, workers and the public. That is the very opposite situation from all the complications and centralisations that we get under nationalisation, without initiative. There is not a man in a nationalised industry today that does not know precisely what I am talking about. If there is one thing that can be said with certainty, it is that in a nationalised industry you lose freedom of speech, because you have to watch your step.

Mr. Jack Jones: I always listen with tremendous interest to the hon. Member. He is one of the very few people in the House who know what they are talking about. I would like him to give one specific instance, just one, to show where people who are now working within the orbit of the Iron and Steel Corporation were not working for so-called private enterprise. It is rather alarming to suggest that because they were brought within the Iron and Steel Corporation they withheld their patriotic services.

Mr. Robson Brown: I always listen with great respect to the hon. Member for Rotherham, but I cannot quite get the point of his intervention.

Mr. Jones: Let me make it clear. There are people who were working in the steel companies before they were taken over nationally, and who are still there.

Mr. Robson Brown: Right. I am just going to deal with that. Thank you very much, but before I come on to it I would like to say that I was specially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Alex, Anderson) who spoke with deep feeling of the social consequences to whole communities of the closing down of a steel works. That touches a very soft spot in my heart. He put out a lot of argument about the bad old days with which I could not agree, but I sensed that he had very deep feeling for his people. I suggest to the Minister that when we get down to the real drafting of the Bill with Amendments, the Board should not be able to make any decision regarding the permanent closing of a works, or be able to put it into effect, without the absolute authority of the Steel Board.
I also feel that we should consider the respective responsibilities of the Steel


Board and of the Agency. There I am in sympathy with many previous speakers on both sides of the House. As it is stated in the Bill, it is the responsibility of the Agency to decide how the various organisations and factories should be broken up and what works and subsidiaries should be attached to what groups. I hold the opinion that it is a vital responsibility which should be properly placed on the shoulders of the Iron and Steel Board because, as the Bill clearly provides, the Steel Board shall be composed in the main of men with knowledge and experience of the steel industry. As the Bill now stands, it would appear that the members of the Agency will probably be men of financial experience and background—

Mr. I. O. Thomas: That is a criticism of the Bill.

Mr. Robson Brown: Of course it is; that is what we are here for. While the Bill provides that they should consult the Steel Board as to how, in their judgment, groups should be made, it seems to me that the responsibility should be with the Steel Board; or that at least they should work together at this stage where they are deciding how the grouping of the work should be worked out. The responsibility of the Realisation Agency is a financial one, and their main function should be to assess the capital value of each of the groups or companies and to carry out the necessary negotiations for the sale or disposal of the companies.
My next point is that the Realisation Agency, through their power as a holding company, are responsible for the direction of the various companies until such time as they have been disposed of by the Agency. It might be considered that the Board itself should also have that responsibility. There may be arguments which I have not yet appreciated and which will come forward in the Committee stage, but I feel on this aspect that all matters of finance should be the responsibility of the Agency and that all practical administrative matters should be the responsibility of the experienced men forming the Steel Board.
I have no doubt that a majority of this House would agree with me also that we must have a safeguard in the Bill to prevent majority holdings of any company passing into foreign ownership. That is an important point, but I will

leave it there now. Then the point has already been made by many others, and I have had experience of it in past international negotiations, that it is imperative that all international negotiations in regard to the sales and the like should be dealt with by the Board in addition to any matter connected with the Schuman Plan.
I feel also that we ought to have information during the Committee stage as to the proposals of the Minister with regard to the disposal of home ore and foreign ore. We should also look carefully at the question of who is to have authority and responsibility for the purchasing, allocation and disposal of foreign ore and raw materials, for whoever controls the supply and allocation of raw materials controls the industry.
I want to swing now to another entirely different point. In dealing with the problems of carbonisation, should not the Gas Board be expected to consult with the Steel Board as well as the Coal Board regarding capital development schemes as well as general matters? Examination will show that on questions of carbonisation all three are interlocking in their interests.
I hope that during the Committee stage we shall give full consideration to the position of the workers in the industry and their relationships with the individual companies. I should like to see facilities for the availability of special shares for the workers in the industry and something in the nature of a workers' charter. With regard to the thorny question of the iron foundries, I have the feeling that the Minister is fully seized of the problem and I am quite sure that he will find a good, sound solution to the satisfaction of all.
In many speeches in this debate there has been an attempt to besmirch the record of the steel makers of the past, before the war, and to suggest that their motives now and in the future should be treated as suspect. That is most unfair and unjust, because time and time again Opposition Front Bench speakers have praised and given full credit to the leaders of the steel industry, both during and since the war. The most remarkable endorsement they could possibly have given them was to leave them in charge of the companies during nationalisation; and yet we now hear some of the Members on the Opposition side speaking of


them as mysterious, wicked barons. It is because of these very men in the industry, who have been running the industry in the last 20 months, that there has been no strong evidence of any inefficiency since nationalisation. Again and again in the early part of the afternoon, Opposition speakers challenged us on this side to give that evidence.
The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), I think it was, made a most remarkable statement. He said that we had only arrived at the beginning of the road of inquiry and experience and of making nationalisation efficient. He was most sincere when he said that. But the nation cannot afford that length of time and the costly price of getting that experience the long and the slow way. We have accepted the nationalisation of coal, and I think that hon. Members opposite should now give consideration to a Conservative proposal to undertake a wise and prudent Measure for the steel industry.
The purpose and intentions of the Bill are right. With suitable modifications, it should prove to be a Measure which can stand the test of time; because if it does not stand the test of time, the only alternative is to go back to nationalisation. Anybody with any responsibility in the industry knows and realises this. The Bill provides maximum flexibility in the individual companies and in the industry also. It combines with that a measure of accountability which we, in all parts of the House, consider is absolutely desirable. If we do this, we shall create the confidence and stability without which the industry cannot prosper.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) has made his usual vigorous, clean and, in many ways, constructive contribution upon a subject in which he is very knowledgeable, but he completely missed one point.
I do not think that any hon. Friend of mine on this side of the House has ever talked about steel makers being reactionary. What we have talked about is steel owners, the people who are utterly divorced from the product itself and who merely consider steel production to be a vehicle by which they make their profits.
I was touched by the hon. Member's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for

Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who spoke about the importation of steel sheet. The hon. Member for Esher hoped that we would never again see the dumping of steel in Britain. I do not know whether he remembers what happened this year, when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister became the biggest single bulk purchaser in world history by getting us about a million tons of steel from the United States of America and dumping it.

Mr. Robson Brown: The answer to that is very simple. The whole capacity of the country was fully extended. This additional steel has been a life-saver to the workers and to the industry. I was talking about when there is a surplus in this country; then, we will fight dumping.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member said that he hoped we would never see foreign steel dumped over here. Indeed, he and his party have been responsible for the dumping which we have seen this year.
I am glad to see that a representative of the Liberal Party is present. I was extremely interested to hear the contribution of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who told us that in the days when the Labour Government were nationalising industry, he placed the onus of responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of that Government to prove that nationalisation was necessary. Most of us on this side of the House accept that onus. Indeed, we were so keen to show the people of the country the basis on which our nationalisation Bills were founded that every one of us spent weekend after weekend touring the country explaining every Clause of those nationalisation Bills and accepting the onus of responsibility. What I did not gather from the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery when he went on to say that he supports the Bill is whether he keeps a constant line of thought and demands that the de-nationalisers shall prove their case as the nationalisers proved their case during their period of office.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that another reason he supported the Measure was that it would mean that the Minister of Supply would answer detailed Questions on the conduct of the steel industry put by hon. Members. I ask the right hon. Member who is to reply to the debate


if he will tell us whether the right hon. and learned Member was right in arguing that when this Bill is an Act of Parliament the Minister of Supply is bound to answer detailed Questions on the everyday responsibilities of the industry and whether we can put down those Questions and expect them to be answered.
I think the Minister is in most serious trouble. I have listened to practically every speech made from the other side of the House in these two days. As I heard the arguments, the main basis upon which the Minister's hon. Friends support him in this Measure is the belief that we on this side of the House will accept it as a compromise Measure. Speech after speech has been couched in those terms. Now that the right hon. Gentleman and his party know that we are not going to accept this as a compromise Measure, there is no basis for nor reason whatever why his hon. Friends should continue to support him in trying to get this Bill on the Statute Book. It is obvious that the party opposite is quite hopelessly divided and split, seeing that this side of the House refuse to accept this Bill as any kind of compromise.
The speeches of his hon. Friends have shown that they completely dislike the very supervision which, he tells us, is essential to the industry if it is not again to become a private monopoly when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. The fact that the supervision they suppose this Bill contains would stop it from becoming a private monopoly is the very issue that is repugnant to them. They wish to get rid of the supervision within this Bill which they believe will, in fact, stop the industry becoming a private monopoly.
The characteristics of private monopoly, as we know from grim experience, are international cartelisation and restrictions on production levels. In other words, they are the very opposite of the best interests of British economy at present. Those of us who believe in more economic integration in Western Europe will be very reticent in propounding ideas as to integration with other Western European nations now that we know that the objective of the party opposite is to put steel back into private hands, which we know would mean international cartelisation.

Mr. Peter Roberts: There seems to be a certain amount of confusion of thought. I imagine that the

hon. Member is speaking of the Schuman Plan, and so on. Surely he appreciates that the Schuman Plan deals not at all with the question of ownership of the industry itself. It makes no difference whether it is nationalised or not, as the whole question does not depend on ownership.

Mr. Lee: I think the hon. Member is confused. I am pointing out that while British steel production is in the hands of the people by means of a nationalised industry, I am sure that integration could take place without it becoming again any sort of international cartel. While it is in the hands of private enterprise, I am quite certain that internationalisation of any kind would again mean the creation of an international cartel.
The Minister, in his speech, based much of his case for the Bill on the premises that we, under our nationalisation Measure, had created an artificial division of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman is quite within his rights in arguing that, but what he is not able to argue is that he should now effect a further subdivision of this industry by the delicate mechanism of an auctioneer's hammer. That is precisely what he himself agreed will happen when he told us that he knew that for quite a long time the Holding Agency cannot hope to get rid of all the units of which the industry is composed.
Therefore, in his attempts to get this industry back into private hands, the Minister is scrapping the division which he made in the industry, a division which was made after serious consideration by this House, and which was based on the creation of a viable entity both in the nationalised portion and in the private portion. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman is now to create two sections neither of which will be based on any scientific analysis but both of which will be based, as I have already put it, on the rise and fall of the auctioneer's hammer.
After keeping us for a complete Session waiting to discover what his great ideas were on the de-nationalisation of steel, we find that this wonderful conception he has of a re-division of steel boils down to the magical formula of the "Going, going, gone" of some auctioneer in some part or other of the country.
If the Minister is serious about wishing to obtain proper control of the industry,


he must know quite as well as we do that the puny weak-kneed thing he is dressing up to look like a board is a hopeless proposition for the task. He knows quite well that it cannot possibly stand up to his friends of Steel House. One does not produce a mouse to curb the activities of a rogue elephant.
My intention in addressing the House tonight was to bring to the notice of the Government the position of the principal consumers of steel. These are, of course, the engineering and shipbuilding industries. When the party opposite have argued in opposition that our nationalisation Measures, taking place at a time when there was economic stringency, and when we could not foresee what the effects of those Measures would be, were quite wrong and would have an unsettling effect upon the industry. How does that square with their present actions in seeking to de-nationalise those industries?
Shipbuilding and engineering are two industries upon which, as both sides of the House are agreed, much of our prosperity in the future will depend. I put it to the Minister that in bringing this Bill before us now he is gambling with the jobs of millions of workers within those two basic industries. Those industries have during the past year increased their production—almost alone among the industries of Britain—by between 5 and 6 per cent., although I know that between one-seventh and one-eighth of their total production has been on defence contracts. Our hopes of avoiding economic disaster rest on our ability to expand those industries and increase our exports of their products.
I put it to the Minister that if we increase the size of these industries, and also if the output per man increases, it follows that the steel supplies must be rapidly expanded. How does the Government propose to do it? By handing steel back to private monopolies whose interests have been shown to lie in restricting of output and not in increasing it. Why should engineers agree either to help in the training of others under their relaxation agreements or to working themselves out of a job while the steel lobby uses its puppets on the Front Bench opposite to hand over the swag to the people who supported them at the last Election?
If I may switch from that topic, interesting as it is, I would say that we are all agreed that the world is still a dangerous place, with the threat of war still hanging over us. This Measure is a retrograde step, in that it gives those who live by profits a greater opportunity to exploit steel production for those ends. I believe that the Labour Party must include in its next election programme the decision to take the profit motive out of armament production. In the pre-war years, that demand grew to a remarkably high level among Liberals and Radicals as well as among Socialists.
In a period when we are in this dangerous situation so far as the threat of war is concerned, the sale of armaments is one of the methods by which the Government propose to balance our accounts, and we see Herr Krupp back in the saddle in Germany. I put it to the House, and through the House to the nation, that it is time the profit motive was taken out of the armaments industry. If this Bill should be condemned for no other reason, it should be condemned on the basis that the party opposite are giving scope to the armament kings again to have their way in a very short time.
We have heard, and doubtless we shall continue to hear, mealy-mouthed hypocrisy from hon. Members opposite about the loyalty and solidarity of our British trade union movement. As a humble member of that movement, I am proud of its loyalty and solidarity. Whenever there has been a crisis of any type facing this nation, it has always been known that the solidarity of the trade union movement could be relied on and could be used in the best interests of the nation. But I put it to the Government that qualities of solidarity are the exact opposite of those qualities which make up a collection of "drips."
There is no patriotism in allowing oneself to be used as a dumb accessory to the robbery of the national assets. Every hon. Member knows that the contents of the Bill are a secondary consideration to its authors. It is not a Bill in the sense that we have known such legislation in this House. It is a squalid plot to grab the loot of the October, 1951, victory. Along with the Transport Bill, it resurrects the Toryism of the worst part of the 18th century. Henry Fox and his companions brought the practice and


usage of patronage to a fine art. The "open hand at the public Exchequer" was the order of the day during the 18th century.
Her Majesty's present Ministers are making the handing over of thousands of pounds, even hundreds of thousands of pounds, such as happened in the days of Henry Fox, look like the childish meanderings of amateurs. They are handing over public assets in the form of basic industries worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the British nation. British democracy cannot survive this type of thing, and I believe that if it continues the whole level of decency and cleanliness in British public life is at stake.
That being so, I believe it incumbent upon those of us who sit on this side of the House to oppose this Bill, because it leads to a vast extension of the system of patronage and to an extension of the understanding that if great industries will back the Tory Party financially they will get their pound of flesh when the work has been done. Therefore, believing that as we do, it is our duty to rouse the nation, to tell the people what is really contained in this Bill, as a certain way of sweeping the Government from office before they can carry out this proposal.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: In the short time at my disposal, I content myself by saying to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that I do not think that he did himself justice by the speech he has just made. I have heard him make much better ones. I have listened closely to this debate in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that to produce steel efficiently the ownership of the industry must be in public hands. That seemed to be the whole point of the speech of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) and of other speeches also.
One of the reasons I strongly support this Bill is that I believe it to be a continuation of the policy of Conservatives on this matter for the last 15 or 20 years. Ever since 1933 we, as a party, have maintained that because the steel industry is of great importance, it is necessary that the Government should have some say in how it should be run. That has been the policy of the Conservative Party for 15 or 20 years.
That policy was interrupted by the Labour Government when they nationalised the industry. By this Bill we are merely going back to the experiment which we were trying to work out in this industry so successfully between the two wars. Therefore, I say to Her Majesty's Ministers that they should press on with this experiment.
There is no reason why this form of control should not be carried on side by side with the form of control adopted in the nationalised coal industry. We are prepared to see that experiment work out, and hon. Gentlemen opposite should be prepared to see this experiment work out. Ultimately we shall discover which is the better way to run large industries of this nature.
I wish to deal with the so-called threats which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and others, and which we may hear repeated by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). I wish to warn them that it is unwise and dangerous to commit themselves before the event. During the earlier debate on the White Paper, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said that in his constituency at the last Election no interest was taken in de-nationalisation. He rather suggested that that was true elsewhere.
I suggest that he might have said that no interest was taken in re-nationalisation. The general feeling in Sheffield—and I think that the hon. Member for Rotherham will agree that the same is true in Rotherham—is, "Let us take politics out of the steel industry." That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite will find if, after four years of the successful working of this Bill which I hope we shall experience, they try to go to the country on re-nationalisation. I do not believe that they will dare to go to the country offering to upset this industry all over again. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite beware what sort of commitments they make now. Those commitments may sweep them further down the polls than they are already.
I return to the speech of the Minister, on which I congratulate him, and the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, who I thought put up a very good performance. We must press on with this Bill the main principle of which we


approve, but there are three points which I would put to my right hon. Friend who is to reply.
The first is that it may well be that the net or scope has been spread too wide. Again, referring to what was said about the future by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall, I think he was rather smelling the political wind. I do not think he is going to be really sincere in that, because the question of re-nationalisation and the taking over of the ownership of industry is a very different matter from the question of taking over control. I do not believe that in the previous Act the right hon. Gentleman stopped his nationalisation plan where he did because of any regard for the steel rollers or the engineering industry, but simply because it was impracticable to go any further. Therefore, I say to the House that we must not take these threats very seriously.
I would say that there is certainly a feeling that some of the Clauses in this Bill are not applicable to the small firms—some of these 2,000 which are now to be brought under control—and I wish to put to the Government the suggestion that they should consider the re-imposition of a tonnage figure—in the neighbourhood of 20,000 tons a year—below which the development powers of the Board need not go.
I would also apply that to the question of giving information. I think it may be extremely dangerous to have wide powers of seeking information from a lot of small firms which are busily engaged in production. We may well be introducing a whole series of snoopers looking into facts and figures when the people who have to produce the steel might be better employed in getting on with their job.
I would also mention, in passing, that there should be greater safeguards of appeal to the Minister on the price structure. So far as I can see, in Clause 7 it is not sufficiently stated what powers of appeal there are to be for individuals who consider that they have been injured.
I end by giving this warning. There is, and there always has been, in this industry a certain section which desires large co-ordinated units, and which has for many years been trying to absorb the small individual plants. The danger that

I see in this Bill is that too much power is to be given to the large co-ordinator, who will use that power to squeeze out some of the highly specialised small firms. These large co-ordinators have always looked upon the small firms as rather a nuisance, and in Sheffield we have a great number of such small firms producing high-quality steel.
I want to be quite certain that there will not be undue pressure, through the power given to large co-ordinating influences in the industry, to try to squeeze out some of these very essential small people. I think that, by introducing some tonnage limit, that might well be avoided, as well as by introducing some form of appeal to the Minister against the actions of the Board.
That, unfortunately, is all that I have time to press upon my Front Bench. The time has now come when we are to hear the winding-up speeches in this debate, and all I can say, having spent much time in listening to and reading the debate, is that, in that continuity of policy which this Government proposes to carry out, this Bill is a constructive step forward.
The period of nationalisation which we have had has really been a period of stultification, because during that period the only really effective thing that was done was to take one or two not fully effective directors off the Boards, but otherwise the question of nationalising has never really been put into effect. The danger we have not yet seen, and will never see. I sincerely hope we shall give this Bill a Second Reading.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: This two-day debate to which we have been listening, and which has taken three days to conclude, has been one of great interest. It has been conducted in a very good atmosphere, and there has been an intelligent application of knowledge from those who know something about the industry. There has, of course, also been an effort made by those who know nothing about the industry, but who are anxious to see it go back from whence it came—back into private hands.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) too far because, unfortunately, he did not have time to develop his argument, but he did suggest that the time had now arrived when the Rotherham and Sheffield elec-


torates were of opinion that this question should be taken out of politics. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and those electorates agree with him, and nothing would give me and my colleagues on this side of the House greater satisfaction than that he should go back to Sheffield tomorrow and I to Rotherham—I am prepared to do that subject to the Whip's permission—in order to tell our constituents that the Government have taken this matter out of politics and have put this Bill behind them for all time.
I came to the House last Tuesday expecting to hear a series of devastating speeches about the parlous state in which the steel industry now finds itself. I followed carefully what the Prime Minister had to say at Scarborough. He told his constituents and the Tory customers whom he has to support and with whom he has to agree that the new Government had saved the industry from disaster, that the industry had, as it were, been grabbed back in the nick of time from going completely over the precipice.
I suggest that the test of the argument here today and at any other time is to get at the facts. This industry is the newest to be nationalised, and has had the shortest period of time in which to put its ideas—not its idealogies—into operation. It has been denounced as having failed. I have listened carefully to almost every word spoken in this debate, and I defy contradiction when I say that not one sentence has been spoken which attempted to prove that the Iron and Steel Corporation has failed to deliver the goods or to satisfy the public interest. Surely that is a fair test.
When my colleague the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply spoke today he said that he had considerable trouble in finding something new about which to speak. After all, we did have that very fine contribution from my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Supply himself, and I feel that his speech had quite a lot to do with the disappearance of hon. Members opposite. They were so satisfied that the Opposition's case had been made out and so dissatisfied with the advocacy of the case put forward by the present Minister of Supply that they felt there was no object in staying much longer within the confines of this House.
When my ex-colleague in the Ministry of Supply spoke, I was reminded of a

little story which is, I think, rather apt. It is the story of the Scots boy who took the Yorkshire girl for a long walk—15 miles, I think—during which neither of them spoke. Then the girl plucked up courage and said, "Jock, will you marry me?" They then walked back the 15 miles and sat in the gloaming for three or four hours, and again neither of them spoke. Once more the girl plucked up courage and said, "Jock, are you never going to speak to me again?" to which he replied, "Good gracious woman, have I not said enough?" I suggest that the speech which we heard the day before yesterday from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and the speech that we heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford have been sufficient to prove our case.
Let us examine this question of "disaster." As the House knows, I have been kept fairly well-informed about what is going on in this great industry. Week by week and month by month I have followed carefully what it is doing, what it is up to, what it is heading for and what the lads in the industry and the managements are saying and thinking. When I speak of the industry I always include those grand fellows at the head offices, not those remote people way back who control those who actually get on with the job.
What have been the effects? When the White Paper on the de-nationalisation of the industry was produced in this House, figures were published which showed that in October the production of ingot steel in this great industry was running at the rate of 17 million tons per annum—the highest figure ever recorded in history. The production of pig iron for 10 months ending in October was running at exactly one million tons more than for the 10th months of the previous year
I am not going to be so foolish as to suggest to the House that that was because of nationalisation. I would be a fool so to suggest. What I say is that the plan which the Federation brought out, which coincided with the knowledge that the industry was to be nationalised by the Socialist Government, has been implemented and encouraged. Every possible thing was done when we were in office to see that the plan fructified in the national interest. We do not claim


that nationalisation of itself has brought about this very healthy state. What we claim is that the story that is put about, and the claim made by the present Minister of Supply, that somehow somewhere initiative has disappeared and there has been a withdrawal of effort, is a fallacy. The story that because of political interference some furnaces which should have produced steel or pig iron have not done so to the extent that they should have done is a complete fallacy.
It is a libel not only upon the men but upon their managements to suggest that because of nationalisation they have withdrawn their initiative and knowledge. They do not like these statements to be put about. In the main they are Tories, but as a trade unionist I feel that it is right and proper to defend those who are unable to come to this House and defend themselves. They are a grand lot of people and they have done a marvellously good job of work.
I do not want to be facetious or naughty, but when I was in industry I always felt sympathy with a man who found difficulties in doing a job because of industrial nepotism, and I have a great deal of sympathy with a man who is unable to do a job because of political nepotism. I say that quite definitely. I know that at bottom the Minister wants to see the industry prosper. I know that the Tory Party believe that this Bill is a means to that end and the way to bring about a definite conclusion of the conflict that exists between us.
But the Minister has produced nothing that convinces me that the contents of this Bill can do better for Britain in any shape or form than is done by the existing set-up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford dealt very faithfully, industriously and effectively with the Board which is full of gums with no teeth. It is gummy in the literal sense of the word, because its members have a sticky job to do—very gummy indeed.
There is to be this Board—a façade which will have a leavening of high-ranking trade unionists upon it and will try to convince this country that it is going to have real power of control. The Minister knows that it will have nothing of the sort. It can suggest; it can make connections with the industry; it can do

all sorts of things other than make decisions which are effective and objective. That Board has no power to do what we would have it do. It will comprise primarily all those whose interests lie in Steel House.
We shall wait and see. I have made many forecasts in this House, including one about Saturday morning work in the coal mines. At the time, that forecast did not appear to be feasible. I say to the House that I shall be very much mistaken if I find that there is not a positive majority on this Board consisting of people directly connected at this moment with Steel House and all that Steel House means.
Then there is the so-called independent Chairman. How can a Chairman of such a Board be independent when he is expected to look after what, in effect, is really an instrument of Tory policy? The Minister himself may make every effort to appoint an independent person, but he himself is not independent. There is even the person who appoints the Minister, and his point of view will have to be borne in mind all the time in all these matters.
That Board can do nothing but recommend. I have prepared a lot of notes, but I prefer to box on without them. We find in the Bill that the Board shall consult the present set-up and whatever companies it is decided to bring into being, and, having satisfied itself that it is not possible to obtain the optimum output of steel in this country which, in the opinion of the Board and the Government, is necessary, they can go to the Minister and use words something like these, "Say Boss, we have done all that we could with these people. They refuse to move. We have no power to compel them and we recommend that you, the Minister, shall set up a steel works and run it yourself."
There we should have the spectacle of a Tory Minister of today becoming a Socialist Minister overnight, putting into being the very thing which he now denounces—a State-owned and controlled steel works. What a farcical situation. That would be contrary to all that the Tories stand for. I ask the Government to take note of what the hon. Member for Esher has just said. He with one or two others including the hon. Members


for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), has a great knowledge of the industry. The Board has no teeth. It can make no objective decisions and enforce them. I suggest that that in itself is far from sufficient.
I now come to the greatest racket, which is the so-called Realisation Agency. It is a disposals board—a glorified receivership—set up to get shot as quickly as possible of one of John Bull's finest assets—his steel industry. What is this Board given power to do? It can sell any plant; it can hire out any plant; it can lease any plant; it can break up any steel work or parts thereof and it can group those portions which will be easiest to sell, with no regard to technical efficiency or sociological results. It will be simply a financial agency wishing to get hold of the brass—the money.
Let me tell the House the sort of thing which I am afraid will happen. I have no need to go any further than my own constituency of Rotherham, where we have two very fine steel works. I started work in one of them as a boy. I was born within 200 yards of its fence and my father worked there for 38 years—the Parkgate Iron and Steel Company—an old-established and worthy concern. That is Plant A. Then we have Plant B—a part of that great steel organisation, United Steels. They are both in the market to be sold.
I want the Minister to take great care about this and to pay heed to what I am suggesting. I do not say that this will happen, but it might. Prospective buyers may come along and they may look at United Steels, part of a great, lucrative money-making concern. The Agency are anxious to sell. They want to get rid of it and, because of their anxiety, they can be taken advantage of, and they would be. The buyers might say: "We will think seriously about United Steels, but only on one condition, that we have the blast furnaces which the Parkgate Company have and which United Steels have not. At the moment pig iron is being brought 40, 50, 60 and 70 miles into the United Steels works."
That sort of thing could happen and that old-established firm could find itself being dismembered. For 35 years I worked for the Manchester Steel Corporation, for whom I have a great regard and who, I think, have still a little regard

for the person who is addressing this House at the moment. This firm has docking facilities, unloading facilities, blast furnaces, coke ovens, a by-product plant, a very fine wire mill, a rod mill and a department making road materials.
There is nothing to prevent those who would wish to do so from making big bids for the whole or part of that organisation. Within two miles of the Manchester Steel Corporation at the moment are Petrochemicals and a great concern making gas for the Manchester Corporation. How easy it would be under this Bill for such people to satisfy the desires of the Agency to realise the greatest amount of money by inducing them to sell off that great concern piecemeal. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that. If that happened we should find a great organisation cut about—its arms and legs cut off, and its heart taken out. It is a shocking thought.
The Minister may say that under the Bill it may look like that but that is not what is intended. I am dealing with what the Bill says. I want to ask some pertinent questions. Who are the people it is suggested may buy up these concerns? At the moment we are selling armaments to America. Can dollars be brought into this picture? Is there anything to prevent the Realisation Agency from making a deal for American dollars? I am asking this question and I want to know the answer.
British steel workers are very proud men. I stand here as a very humble man, but I am very proud of the people from whom I come. They are proud citizens of this nation who put their country before anything else. They want to know if it is possible for some unknown owner to become their new boss.
There is a shocking thing that has not been mentioned in this Bill—a deplorable thing. It lays down that penalties shall be imposed of imprisonment and fines if, without consent having been given by the new owners in writing, their names are divulged to the workers. This is a shocking thing. The party who tell the country that they will set the people free are now telling these honest and God-fearing people that, unless consent has been given in writing, they shall not know who is the new owner.
We want to know who these ghost owners are likely to be. The Parlia-


mentary Secretary may shake his head, but I advise him to have a careful look at the Bill. When I was Parliamentary Secretary, doing his job, I admit freely that I had so much to do that it was difficult to do everything and to keep tag on every word. I advise him, before he gets into bed—if his conscience will let him go to bed—to have a very good look at this Bill.
I want briefly to refer to what happened. On Tuesday the orchestra assembled with all its supporters and we heard speeches across the Floor of the House. About half past twelve the next morning they had all departed, like Haydn's Symphony, except the three fiddlers on the Front Bench. They then left the fiddlers three to deal with a real "fiddle"—and this is it.
A little bit of humour is not a bad thing, for we are living in very serious times, but I speak seriously now. We have set up an organisation which is not perfect. I want nothing at all to do with anything which is perfect in this life; anything which is perfect cannot be improved tomorrow, and I want nothing to do with an organisation which cannot be improved. We set up an organisation which is not perfect. Had the Government come to the Opposition and said, "We believe this thing is worth a fair trial and we believe it should be given an opportunity to express itself," that I could have understood.
I could talk for a long time on how I believe the Government could have made a better job of this. For instance, there is the question of raw materials—a very vexed question. Why is it necessary to have provision in the Bill whereby the Board can be granted £1 million to set up a rival organisation to the present purchasing Agencies? Is there a fear that the purchasing Agencies are not as good as the Minister told us they were? The new Board may set up a purchasing Agency—but £1 million will not even look at the problem. The Parliamentary Secretary wonders; but this is in the Bill all right. I am advised that the new ships required to bring in the ore from abroad would alone cost something of the order of £5 million to £10 million.
This is a wicked Bill. It was conceived in political venom and it is immoral in its application. What the Bill

seeks to do and what the Tory Party seek to do is to haul down the emblem of which we are all proud—the emblem boldly flying at the head of our steel works—not literally, of course, but it is there all the same; and it says, "A nationally owned concern." They want to haul it down and to run up in its place, to the mast head, the emblem of piracy—the skull and crossbones; they want to fly the emblem of political and financial piracy. I ask the House, with all the sincerity I can command, to reject this evil thing.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): In a long debate of this kind there must necessarily be a certain amount of repetition and re-statement of familiar arguments. By the time the last speeches are reached, almost everything that is relevant has been said, and quite a lot that is irrelevant, too. Members on both sides have by now, I am sure, decided, if not their opinions, at least how they are going to vote. I am not quite sure of the precise position of the pairs.
Therefore, neither the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) who preceded me, deservedly popular as he is in all parts of the House, nor I, can flatter ourselves, however ably or persuasively we can deploy our arguments, that we shall have a very marked effect upon the result. Nevertheless, there are waverers, if not inside this House, then outside. It is these folk, who hold moderate opinions and who, we believe, exercise unprejudiced judgment, who are the final masters of our political faiths, and whom I shall try to bear in mind in presenting to the House a few final arguments in favour of the course which Her Majesty's Government are recommending in the Bill.
Meanwhile, I ought to welcome back the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) to the dignity of the Front Bench and the Despatch Box. I thought he made a very able speech. I regretted a certain bitterness in his attacks upon Steel House. However, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to my old chief, Sir Andrew Duncan, at the Ministry of Supply. He served this country and its steel industry well in peace and in war. I do not know whether it is he and his type who are to be attacked in that


way. All I can say is that he undermined his strength in loyal devotion to the immense burden which he shouldered for so long. We are glad to have the hon. Member back. I hope it will be permanent. I do know the precise state of the poll, but if there is any question of another ballot I think we on this side of the House ought to be allowed to have a voice. So far as I am concerned, he would have my vote.
Many details of this scheme have been dealt with over and over again in this discussion. The Government's position has been put forward with conspicuous ability and tenacity by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply who is in charge of the Bill. Whatever else has emerged from this controversy, the one thing that has emerged is the immensely fortified and enlarged Parliamentary reputation of my right hon. Friend. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Rotherham, when he reflects, will regret the rather mean gibe which he thought fit to make against him.
The detailed replies on many points were made in an admirable speech by the Parliamentary Secretary. At this last stage I can only deal with some of the large issues that emerge. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) put it rather well and fairly during the debate on the White Paper, when he said:
Quite frankly, this is not an issue between private enterprise and nationalisation. Control of some sort, or supervision … is agreed between us. All we on this side of the House"—
he was speaking from the Opposition Benches—
are worried about is whether the control proposed in the White Paper will be effective.
I agree with that. That is quite fair. He went on to say:
We say that if the industry is to be controlled, it can be effectively controlled in the national interest only if the ownership is in public hands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1320.]
That was repeated in substance by the hon. Member for Watford and it is really the issue. It is a vital issue. It is no doubt the fundamental issue which divides, honourably enough but none the less acutely, the parties and public opinion today.
But if Governmental supervision of industry and commerce is indeed impos-

sible or impracticable without Government ownership, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the Government must own all the means of production, distribution and exchange according to the sacred formula of Socialist holy writ. If banking is to be supervised in the national interest, not only must the central bank be owned by the Treasury but all the joint stock banks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—all the merchant banks and all the financial institutions, too.
If agriculture is to be effectively supervised, not only must the farms be nationalised but the farmers also. There will, of course, be the conventional separation between sheep and goats. The kulaks will be liquidated and all the rest will be collectivised. And then, if distribution is to be properly supervised, we must take over not only the large shopkeepers but all the small shopkeepers, too. Then, worse than that—I hardly dare mention the word—we have to take over the Co-ops. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the barrow boys?"]
We in the Conservative Party altogether reject this doctrine. The Liberal Party rejected it too and, curiously enough, a large part of the Socialist Party rejected it also. All are becoming increasingly suspicious of it, and that explains the extreme sensitiveness about what the T.U.C. did or did not say or what happened in the Socialist Cabinet before the Act of 1949.
Now, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is trying to make a stand somewhere on this slippery slope. I was particularly interested in his recent appeal. He said, "Whatever we may think of nationalisation, let us preserve the status quo." He paraphrased that for the benefit of the Tories who do not understand that term and said, "What I mean is, don't let us upset the applecart." What a strange, what a reactionary, doctrine. Not even decent Conservatism; just plain, black reaction. Or can there be another explanation? Was it just the normal plea of the aggressor, great or small, after he has secured his purpose? I must not say after he has got away with the loot. The trouble is that each demand, each act of aggression, is always to be the last and always proves to be the precursor of another.

Mr. William Hamilton: What about steel?

Mr. Macmillan: In this connection the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) used an argument in the debate on Tuesday which I thought came rather strangely from him. He deplored the state of uncertainty which is involved in this Bill. He thought it was very important to create confidence. He said that what we must have is peace in industry. I am bound to say that this is rather a new role for him. I have thought of him in many parts but I have never pictured him as a conciliator. He really must be careful or he will forfeit his position as tribune of the people. In any case if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends feel that—

Mr. Hamilton: What about steel?

Mr. Macmillan: —the remedy—

Mr. William Ross: Let us have the Bill.

Mr. Macmillan: If they want to create confidence, let them abstain from these foolish and irresponsible threats. I noticed today that the hon. Member for Watford carried those threats further than the right hon. Member for Vauxhall did two days ago. I do not understand quite why he did that, except, perhaps, that he has come down so definitely on one side of the ideological fence while the right hon. Gentleman is still sitting on it.
A rather more naive theory was put forward in the debate—by I think, one of the hon. Members from Sheffield, who said that the threat of nationalisation was a good thing because it acted as a spur to progress; it kept the industry on its toes. It was to hang, I suppose, for ever, like the Sword of Damocles, over the industry only to be effective if it never fell.
Then we had the final warnings. We were warned that there would be an upsurge of righteous indignation from an angry and outraged public opinion. At one time, an hon. Member warned us what we must expect. "Wait," he said, "and see. See what Cleveland will say." There was not much of an upsurge of public indignation there—not any more than there was on the first day of debate here.
I saw no upsurge of public indignation. There were four Socialists at the end of

the count. [HON. MEMBERS: "There were more."] Oh, yes, we heard this afternoon that there were 100 in ambush. I suppose they have got so accustomed to the cave of Adullam that they do not know of anywhere else to stand. First, we had Cleveland, then we had the great public indignation here in the House, and then we had other upsurges as well—all this and Wycombe, too.
Meanwhile, let us examine a little more closely the argument about supervision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come to the Bill."] There was a time when the dominant theme of British political theory was that the Government of the day should play no part, or practically no part, in the economic life of the country; that it should stand aside and let economic forces, as they were called, enjoy complete and unbridled play. This doctrine, whatever else it may have been, was never a Conservative doctrine. Disraeli said of Free Trade that it was not a principle, it was an expedient. That is really our view about the position of Government in industry: it is not a principle, it is an expedient.
Of course, in the modern world no Government can stand altogether aside from the great basic industries of the country. Of course, in the conditions of our modern economy, especially following two great and destructive wars, the Government must not merely play the role of the umpire or stand as an objective and disinterested spectator upon the side-line. It must be interested in industry, even at the risk of what some may call interference. There is little doubt about that.
But what we say—and this is the difference between us—is that this guidance, this supervision and this control, cannot be defined in absolute terms. They must be relative to the characteristics and conditions of each trade or industry. They must be exercised with proper regard to the conditions and problems of the day. But in any case, in order that they should be operated effectively, they by no means require that the actual ownership of the industry should be in the hands of the Government. On the contrary, actual ownership, with all the detailed responsibilities which flow from it—or ought to flow from it—may prove rather a hindrance than a help, not an aid but an embarrassment.
It has been said that ownership under the new plan will be in the hands of many people. We regard that as a good thing and not a bad thing. Under the present Act supervision is divided; that is a bad thing. Under the new scheme we shall restore diverse ownership, but we shall make for unified responsibility for supervision. That seems to me to make sense.
It is perhaps worth recalling—[Interruption.] I am afraid that hon. Members will have to bear it. I am sorry they have to put up with it. It is perhaps worth remarking that the Schuman Plan for the coal and iron and steel industries, which most hon. and right hon. Members opposite have thought was of too rigid a character for us actually to join, does not involve or require the ownership of the undertakings by the High Authority. Nor does it involve the nationalisation of those industries by each or any of the six countries involved in the Schuman Plan. That is an interesting fact when we think of all the fear that this system will become too rigid. They are not operating in that way.
I will go further and say that for the task of co-operation and consultation with the new Authority—if and when it comes into being, as I trust it will, for I believe it will honestly be for the good peace and happiness of Europe if it does—it will be essential from our point of view, as I think we all agree, that the proposed Board, relieved of all responsibilities of ownership and therefore of management, should provide a far better body than the Steel Corporation to advise the Government of the day upon the great problems involved.
Of course, these ideas which I have ventured to put forward are not novel. I make no such claim, but I think they are sound. As the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) reminded me earlier, they are ideas which I have tried to preach as a help and clue to industrial peace and progress for more than the 25 years that I have been in politics. Therefore, I welcome this Bill because it seems to be to me in the mood and in the philosophy of everything I have long believed was the true basis of Conservative thought.
I believe that in the operation of such a system the dilemma posed, and honestly posed, by the hon. Member for Sheffield,

Park—that we could not have supervision without ownership—can be solved by these and similar methods. The hon. Member said that we must have complete ownership to supervise an industry and he regards this new concept of nationalisation—for, after all, it is comparatively new—as an essential condition. In our view, that is crude and impracticable. It is like the old laissez faire theory, against which it is a natural reaction and of which it is, paradoxically enough, the child. It pays insufficient regard to the character of a great industry such as iron and steel and to the difficult problems involved in ownership and management of such a diverse and varied complex of undertakings.
In our view, therefore, we should eschew the doctrinaire theory rigidly applied. We should try to find what is needed in each case and then do our best to devise that kind of supervision, that character of control which will be the right instrument for the job. Judged by that test, I sincerely believe that the proposals in this Bill are sound.
This Board has three advantages over the Corporation in the task of supervision. First, it is more comprehensive. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman the deputy Leader of the Opposition, complained that it was too comprehensive. He said that there would be a greater degree of bureaucratic interference. I must say that that rather shook me for, after all, he ought to know; he is the great expert in that. But what becomes of the rival theory that the whole thing was a sham? How could it be a sham if there was to be this tight bureaucratic control?
The right hon. Gentleman failed to grasp the division of functions proposed under the new plan. It is agreed on all sides that the industry must be subject to general supervision in the national interest, but under this scheme each will play their proper role. The Agency and eventually we hope the public, will own the shares, thus ensuring the normal responsibility of management towards shareholders and the corresponding duty of owners to directors and managers and employees. The Board will exercise powers over the major matters of development, over maximum prices and over raw materials. The Minister's powers of intervention are reserve powers to be


held as an ultimate safeguard in the national interest.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) asked me what Questions we would answer. The answer I can make is that my right hon. Friend will answer Questions relevant to the exercise of the functions of his office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, he could not very successfully answer Questions relevant to the functions of the office of the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, with the passing of this Bill into law, the limitation which there now is on our ability to ask detailed Questions will be removed, and we shall be able to ask more detailed Questions?

Mr. Macmillan: I must be a little careful. I thought that there was a Select Committee discussing this very point. I must not commit a breach of Privilege by giving their decision.
I said that the Board was to have powers of general supervision and it is just because the Board is not to accept the responsibilities of ownership, for these are temporarily entrusted to the Agency and will ultimately pass to the public, that the Board can and ought to have powers of general supervision over a wider field.
Secondly, the Board is really a constitutional growth based on the experience of the Forbes Board, as it is often called, which in turn had its origin in the Import Duty Advisory Committee. The Forbes Board worked very well. We had experience of its work, for it played a conspicuous part in advancing the production plans which are now coming to fruition. It had, of course, no statutory powers of its own, but these are now to be given, and that is one of the main objects of the Bill.
Thirdly, the character of the Board and its functions will make it a far better instrument for protecting the interests both of the men employed in the industry and the consumers of its products. As regards the labour and trade union interests it will be easier for it to look after them because of the fact that it does not own the industry. As regards the consumer it will better protect his interests because one or two independent members or perhaps more, who are consumers or who represent consumers, are

worth far more on the Board than all the flimsy façade of a consumers' council.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who I think is in his place. He made a very interesting speech earlier in the debate. He was much alarmed at the powers of the Board being too great. He did not go down very well with his own Front Bench, but he talked a lot of sense. He asked whether it would not be possible that they would be able to prevent the import of sheets and angles which the shipbuilding industry required so much? He asked whether there was not a danger—and I put down his words—of tying up the industry into a monopoly? I must warn him that I think he is showing deviationist tendencies. I hope he will not suffer for this sudden harking back to atavistic reactionary views. I suspect him of once being a Free Trader and still wishing to be.
At any rate I can set his fears at rest. The Board will not have the power to control the import policy of the country. That will rest with the Government of the day. Nor will the Board be allowed to take these powers of which he fears. On the contrary, the constituent companies, whose ownership whether it is restored to the public as a whole or remains partially in the hands of the Agency, will, in our view, be better equipped for their own individual tasks. Their relationship with the Board will be a better one, and just because the ownership does not belong to the Board, their sense of individuality will be strengthened and their goodwill, which is a vital issue—vital especially in the export market—will be a reality, and not an appearance.
Their sense of financial responsibility will be strengthened and at any rate some of the features of competition restored. Thus enterprise in its proper sense can be fostered and strengthened. The principle of freedom and the principle of order have often come into conflict. The precise answer to this problem is an age-long dispute. Societies and civilisations, in an attempt to resolve it, have gone sometimes to one extreme and sometimes to another. This secular controversy is one which no doubt will last so long as human communities exist.
As regards this limited part of this immense general question, the best


organisation of a great basic industry, the proposals in this Bill constitute, in my opinion and in that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, a bold, ingenious and sincere attempt to find the middle way. It therefore commends itself naturally to me. I believe it will be generally welcomed by people of moderate opinion

on both sides of the industry, even with their varying political backgrounds, and I therefore commend it with confidence to the House of Commons and to the nation.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 269.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Alport, C. J. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hurd, A. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Baldwin, A. F.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Banks, Col. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jennings, R.


Barber, Anthony
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barlow, Sir John
Erroll, F. J.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Baxter, A. B.
Fell, A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Finlay, Graeme
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Kaberry, D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fort, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Foster, John
Lambton, Viscount


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fraser Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Birch, Nigel
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Leather, E. H. C.


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gammans, L. D.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bossom, A. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bowen, E. R.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lindsay, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Linstead, H. N.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Godber, J. B.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Brains, B. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Gower, H. R.
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Longden, Gilbert


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Low, A. R. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.




Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimond, J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bullard, D. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Burden, F. F. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
McAdden, S. J.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
McCallum, Major D.


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKibbin, A. J.


Channon, H.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Head, Rt Hon. A. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cole, Norman
Heald, Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Colegate, W. A.
Heath, Edward
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, A. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Crouch, R. F.
Hollis, M. C.
Maude, Angus


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Maudling, R.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)
Holt, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hope, Lord John
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mellor, Sir John


Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, A. H. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Horobin, I. M.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Morrison, John (Salisbury)




Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Teeling, W.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Nicholls, Harmar
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Russell, R. S.
Tilney, John


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nugent, G. R. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Turner, H. F. L.


Nutting, Anthony
Sardys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turton, R. H.


Oakshott, H. D.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Odey, G. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Scott, R. Donald
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vosper, D. F.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Osborne, C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Partridge, E.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Snadden, W. McN.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Watkinson, H. A.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Speir, R. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Pitman, I. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wills, G.


Profumo, J. D.
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Raikes, H. V.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
York, C.


Redmayne, M.
Studholme, H. G.



Remnant, Hon. P.
Summers, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, D. L. M.
Sutcliffe, H.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Butcher.


Robertson, Sir David
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Adams, Richard
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Albu, A. H.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Allen, Arthur (Boswerth)
Daines, P.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Davies A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hannan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Baird, J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Delargy, H. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dodds, N. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bence, C. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Herbison, Miss M.


Benn, Wedgwood
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Benson, G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hobson, C. R.


Beswick, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holman, P.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edelman, M.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Bing, G. H. C.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Houghton, Douglas


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hubbard, T. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Ewart, R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brockway, A. F.
Field, W. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fienburgh, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Burke, W. A.
Follick, M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Carmichael, J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Champion, A. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Chapman, W. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Keenan, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Glanville, James
Kenyon, C.


Clunie, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Coldrick, W.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Kinley, J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, C. F.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)







Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lewis, Arthur
Parker, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lindgren, G. S.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Poole, C. C.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Logan, D. G.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


MacColl, J. E.
Porter, G.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McGhee, H. G.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


McInnes, J.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McLeavy, F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rankin, John
Timmons, J.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reeves, J.
Tomney, F.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, H.
Usborne, H. C.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Viant, S. P.


Manuel, A. C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wallace, H. W.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Watkins, T. E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Weitzman, D.


Mikardo, Ian
Royle, C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mitchison, G. R.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Monslow, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
West, D. G.


Moody, A. S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Morley, R.
Short, E. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wigg, George


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilkins, W. A.


Moyle, A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Willey, F. T.


Mulley, F. W.
Slater, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Murray, J. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Nally, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


O'Brien, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oldfield, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Oliver, G. H.
Steele, T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Orbach, M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oswald, T.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wyatt, W. L.


Padley, W. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Yates, V. F.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stress, Dr. Barnatt



Palmer, A. M. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pannell, Charles
Swingler, S. T.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Studholme.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees) [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, and to dissolve the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain; to establish an Iron and Steel Board for the supervision of the iron and steel industry and to define the functions of that Board, and to make other provision as to the said industry; to provide for the return of iron and steel undertakings to private ownership and for the disposal of the property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the said Coporation, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the repayment of and the payment of interest on any money temporarily borrowed by the Iron and Steel Board established by the said Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), so however that the amount outstanding in respect of the principal of the loans so guaranteed does not at any time exceed one million pounds;
(b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to be so issued in consequence of any provision of the Act by which liabilities in respect of British Iron and Steel Three and a half per cent. Guaranteed Stock, 1979–1981, are transferred to the Treasury and the said stock is deemed to have been created and issued under the National Loans Act, 1939, and the raising of any money required to be raised under the said Act in consequence of any such provision;
(c) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund into the Iron and Steel Realisation Account established by the Act of sums not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and fifty million pounds, and, for the purpose of providing sums to be so issued or replacing sums so issued, the raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939;
(d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and the application in redeeming or paying off debt, of any sums paid into the Exchequer out of the said Account under paragraph (f) (iii) hereof;

(e) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any sums falling to be paid by the Minister of Supply in respect of the provision, acquisition, taking on lease or use of production facilities within the meaning of the Act;
(ii) any sums falling to be paid by the Minister of Labour and National Service in respect of fees or allowances to any referee or board of referees appointed under the Act to determine appeals in respect of compensation or allowances to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board;
(iii) any sums required to be paid out of moneys so provided for the purposes of any order dissolving or winding up the affairs of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency established by the Act;
(iv) any administrative expenses incurred under the Act by the Minister of Supply or the Treasury including sums in respect of the cost to the said Board of acting as agent for the Minister of Supply;

(f) the payment into the Exchequer—

(i) of any sums received by any Minister of the Crown under or in consequence of any provision of the Act;
(ii) out of the Iron and Steel Realisation Account of the amount of any excess of the receipts of the said Agency properly creditable to revenue account for any financial year over the outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account for that year;
(iii) of any moneys standing to the credit of the Iron and Steel Realisation Account which are not required for the making of other issues or payments out of the said Account.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We are, of course, opposed to this Financial Resolution because we are opposed to the Bill, and this Financial Resolution arises out of the Bill. However, in view of the large amount of business that will be before the House this evening, we do not propose to discuss it in detail on this occasion, but to vote against it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 267.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Baxter, A. B.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Astor, Hon. J. J.
Beach, Maj. Hicks


Alport, C. J. M.
Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Banks, Col. C.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Barber, Anthony
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Barlow, Sir John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)




Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Birch, Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marples, A. E.


Black, C. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus


Bowen, E. R.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maudling, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Braine, B. R.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hay, John
Molson, A. H. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Campbell, Sir David
Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Oakshott, H. D.


Carson, Hon. E.
Holt, A. F.
Odey, G. W.


Carey, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Channon, H.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Cole, Norman
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Osborne, C.


Colegate, W. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hurd, A. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crouch, R. F.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Jennings, R.
Raikes, H. V.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon. P.


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robertson, Sir David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambton, Viscount
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Drewe, G.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Russell, R. S.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Duthie, W. S.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Savory, Prof Sir Douglas


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lindsay, Martin
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, R. Donald


Erroll, F. J.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme




Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fort, R.
Low, A. R. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCallum, Major D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gammans, L. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stevens, G. P.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McKibbin, A. J.
Storey, S.


Godber, J. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Studholme, H. G.


Gower, H. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, G. S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Grimond, J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)







Teeling, W.
Vaughan Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Vosper, D. F.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Wills, G.


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tilney, John
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Wood, Hon. R.


Touche, Sir Gordon
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
York, C.


Turner, H. F. L.
Watkinson, H. A.



Turton, R. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tweedsmuir, Lady
White, Baker (Canterbury)
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Mr. Butcher.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.


Adams, Richard
Ewart, R.
MacColl, J. E.


Albu, A. H.
Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Field, W. J.
McInnes, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fienburgh, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Follick, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Foot, M. M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Awbery, S. S.
Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Baird, J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Balfour, A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manuel, A. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bence, C. R.
Glanville James
Mayhew, C. P.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.


Benson, G.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Monslow, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.


Blackburn, F.
Grey, C. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mort, D. L.


Bowden, H. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.


Bowles, F. G.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mulley, F. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hamilton, W. W.
Murray, J. D.


Brockway, A. F.
Hannan, W.
Nally, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hardy, E. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hargreaves, A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
O'Brien, T.


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, S.
Oldfield, W. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Orbach, M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oswald, T.


Carmichael, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Chapman, W. D.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles


Clunie, J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Coldrick, W.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Collick, P. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Daines, P.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.


Deer, G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N)


Dodds, N. N.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edelman, M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, E. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Slater, J.







Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wigg, George


Snow, J. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Sorensen, R. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkins, W. A.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Timmons, J.
Willey, F. T.


Sparks, J. A.
Tomney, F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Usborne, H. C.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Watkins, T. E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Swingler, S. T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sylvester, G. O.
Weitzman, D.
Wyatt, W. L.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
West, D. G.



Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mr. Royle and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [20th November]:


5
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.


SCHEDULE


Defence (General) Regulations, 1939



Regulation two BA (Control of explosives).


10
Regulation sixteen (Stopping up or diversion of highways for purposes of open-cast coal).



Regulation thirty-three (Exemption of certain women from Acts relating to midwives).



Regulation forty-five A (Issue of identity cards to seamen).



Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces).


15
Regulation sixty C (Amendment of s. 4 of Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926).



Regulation seventy six (Handling and conveyance of ammunition, &amp;c. in ports).



Regulation eighty-two (False documents and false statements).



Regulation eighty-three (Obstruction).


20
Regulation eighty-four (Restrictions on disclosing information).



Regulation eighty-five (Entry upon, and inspection of, land).



Regulation eighty-seven (Permits, licences, &amp;c.).



Regulation eighty-eight (Fees for permits, licences, &amp;c).



Regulation eighty-nine (Use of force in entering premises).


25
Regulations ninety to ninety-three and ninety-five to one hundred and five (which contain general, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).



The Third Schedule (Manner of instituting proceedings).


Other Defence Regulations


30
Regulations seventeen E and twenty of the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940.


Parts I, II and III, Regulations twenty-five A, twenty-six, twenty-eight A, twenty-nine and thirty, and Schedules I II and VI of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.


35
Parts I and II and Schedule I of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1940.



Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.



Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.


40
Regulations one and two and paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.



The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.



The Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, 1940, except Regulations eight and nine thereof.

Which Amendment was to leave out lines 10 and 11.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

10.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I hope the House will allow me to say a word that is relevant to the Amendment—

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me? I wanted to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at an appropriate moment on a point relating to the debate. In previous years it has always been the practice that at some time there should be a discussion on the Motion as a whole. Last year, as I understand, that discussion took place collectively on a whole series of Regulations and statutes. Unfortunately, this year that course was not taken.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that in his opening speech in the collective debate that took place last week he courteously and painstakingly tried to deal with the effect of the proposals of the Government on a whole series of Regulations, but at the end of his speech there was a Ruling from the Chair that we were discussing only the limited matter of the Acts then under discussion; and, therefore, there has not been up to the moment any general debate upon the delegated legislation as a whole or upon the Defence Regulations. I do not know whether it would be the appropriate moment for me to ask you whether that debate will take place at the end of the whole series of Amendments or whether it is more convenient that it should take place at the start.
In conclusion may I say that at this moment, although we always receive from you every courtesy in regard to information, we do not know what Amendments have been selected and therefore how many are being omitted and will fall to be discussed on the main Question because they cannot be discussed on individual questions. The House is in some difficulty with regard to that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): At present we are dealing with the Amendments and in due course the main Question will be put. I may or may not be in the Chair and whether or not it will be discussed I do not know. But that will be the appropriate moment to discuss the main Question. With regard to the Amendments, it is unusual

to give any information. I do not know what Mr. Speaker may do. But if the hon. Gentleman will see me afterwards I may be able to give him some information.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. If the discussion takes place at the end we shall know what Amendments have been called and we shall be able to relate our observations to that situation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that the very brief remarks I am about to make may be deemed relevant to this Amendment because it will assist hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House. At the end of the debate on the first Resolution, dealing with the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, I did suggest that there should be an inquiry into the control of delegated legislation and I said that Her Majesty's Government would be pleased to discuss that point.
These discussions have taken place, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon. and learned Member the Leader of the Liberal Party have been consulted and agreement has been reached subject, of course, to the eventual rights of the House, that the matter should be inquired into by a Select Committee of this House. Again subject to the rights of the House to alter the terms when they are brought before them, it has been agreed, as a draft for submission to the House, that the terms of reference should be in some such words as these:
To consider in what respect the existing procedures by which the control of this House over delegated legislation is exercised need to be improved or supplemented and by what means they can best be achieved.
I thought that there was general approval from all quarters of the House about the idea of an inquiry and that it would be courteous to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House, to tell you that the representatives of all parties have not let the grass grow under their feet but have got on with it and produced this result. I am grateful to you and the House for allowing me to say these words.

Mr. Ede: I think it is a good thing that we can start the night's discussions with something on which there can be general agreement. I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for approaching us with an


olive branch so early in the proceedings. What he will come armed with next time it is not for me to prophesy, but it would ill become me, when I have been offered an olive branch, to be other than receptive to it. The dove brings it in his beak and I stand at the window to receive it.
We are glad that this proposal has been put forward and, if I may say this before turning to the Amendment actually before the House, we particularly welcome the fact that the inquiry will be confined to what happens in this House, because we feel that this is a matter for the procedure of this House to be considered by itself. When we get a report, if it is one that can be acted upon, wider considerations may then arise, but I think we shall do well if we confine our attention at this stage to the proceedings of this House and the control of this House over this particular form of legislation. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having mentioned this so early this evening.
10.30 p.m.
Perhaps I might now turn to Regulation 16 which we are proposing, I might almost say in accordance with immemorial custom, to leave out, because every year when the matter was discussed under the previous Government hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite found cause for desiring that this Regulation should no longer appear, and we think that it is appropriate that the Minister of Fuel and Power, who is the Minister now solely concerned with this Regulation, should give us some account of the way he proposes to use it, and also some account of the steps that are taken when the Regulation ceases to apply to a particular footpath and the manner in which that footpath is restored to public use.
I am very nervous about embarking on any question of law with the right hon. and learned Gentleman sitting opposite to me, but I think he will agree with me that as far as the law is concerned it is as much a diversion of a highway to raise it or to lower it as to move it either to the right hand or to the left, and when dealing with footpaths across land which is to be the subject of opencast coalmining that question immediately arises. I recollect being interested in a footpath under which someone was proposing to quarry for gravel, and the highway authority of which I was a member insisted that the

footpath should remain; and it was very like the peak of Helvellyn on a small scale standing up above the surrounding swamp—which is what the excavation for gravel very soon became.
I understand that it is the desire in most of these cases that, for the time being at least, the footpath should be stopped up and should not be left in that condition. What I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, who I understand is to reply, is, first, what steps are taken to ensure that, where such a footpath is stopped up there shall be some means, if possible by diversion round the side of the works, of easy communication between point A, where the old footpath started, and point B where it ends as far as the excavations are concerned.
I am more concerned, however, about what happens when the workings cease to be used. I understand that there is generally an undertaking by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, or the National Coal Board, or whoever may be the authority dealing with the matter, that the land shall be restored, and I hope that when that is done the original line of the footpath will be restored. The Regulation as drafted does not seem to make exact provision for that, but with regard to the paths across agricultural land that were previously closed by Regulation there was an undertaking given that the footpath would be restored when the time came for revoking the Regulation. I can say, as one who was for two years President of the Ramblers' Association, that we have ample evidence that that pledge has not been honoured in a great many cases.
In the county the footpaths of which I know best, the county of Surrey—though I know quite a few in the county of Sussex also—there are many cases where valuable footpaths have been lost to the public use and a good deal of ill-feeling exists. I feel it the more because I always advised people, when crops were being grown during the war, and a year or two after the war, that the sporting thing to do, in view of the national necessity, was not to go diagonally across a field, even where one had the right, but to go round the edges and take the two sides of the triangle. In the days of my youth, when we studied Euclid—a study that, I understand, now no longer vexes the minds of the juvenile population—


these were held to be, as we spent many laborious hours trying to prove, greater than the third.

Mr. I. Mikardo: A reactionary pre-Einstein view.

Mr. Ede: Every time I stretch a piece of elastic I prove the proposition a great deal more than the textbooks seem to do.
It is essential in these days that where footpaths are temporarily closed for the public advantage, and when that advantage no longer requires the closing of the footpaths, they should be restored to the free use that was enjoyed by the public before. In these days, when to get away from the smell of the highway—on, let us say, the road from London to Brighton, or even from London to Worthing—is a thing to be desired at the week-end, it is very annoying to find that tracks that one knew previously as being open to the public are now too often closed, the stiles destroyed, and the planks previously thrown across as bridges no longer in existence. The concern of Members of this House in this matter has always been deep and genuine, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will be able to give us some reassurances with regard to the steps that will be taken concerning the very limited number of paths that now come within the purview of this Regulation.

Mr. Clement Davies: I do not wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman along footpaths, but, in a few words, let me refer to the very important statement that has been made by the Home Secretary. I am quite sure that that statement he has just made to the House will be welcomed by every section in the House and outside it. There has been for a very considerable time a great and deepening anxiety about the exercise of the powers delegated to Ministers by this House. We are all anxious that a solution should be found. I am sure that with good will we shall find that solution which will preserve the democratic control of this House and, at the same time, not interfere with the proper administration of affairs in this country.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I think the House would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply,

could explain to us what is the necessity for keeping this Regulation 16 in effect. As I understand the position, anyone who wants to stop up a highway for any purpose can apply to a court of quarter sessions for an order. That order can be given on the certificate of two justices. I should have thought that hon. Members who are anxious to limit unnecessary extension of the power of the Executive would have been only too glad that the Executive should be subjected to the ordinary procedure of having to go to a court of quarter sessions for an order.
If it is said that that is a cumbrous or unpredictable procedure the answer surely is that this right of use of the highway is an important right, and the decision to place safeguards on any attempt to reduce it demonstrated the wisdom of earlier legislation. It is surely desirable that the Executive, like any other subject desiring to stop up a highway, should be subjected to the same limitation and should have the request or requirement investigated by the court.

Mr. Hale: Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I ventured to ask the guidance of Mr. Deputy-Speaker on the question of the general debate. I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in the observations he was making, which were not relevant to the Amendment, although I agree with them. But may I take it that that little general discussion will not preclude the general debate taking place, and perhaps reference being made to the operation of this Select Committee when we come to discuss the main Motion later on?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful for that information, Mr. Speaker. The House will remember that I did move this Amendment last year. I think I made clear then that the Amendment was, so far as I was concerned, being put forward to ascertain the minds of hon. Members more than to try to secure annulment of the Regulation. That is relevant to this Amendment, as we are speaking in circumstances of difficulty tonight. In saying that, I was not making a point of the timing. I am in a conciliatory mood tonight. We are quoting from the last book of Regulations which is


available in the House, which was printed in 1950. Since then, I believe, this Regulation has been amended.
It is difficult to trace what Amendments have been made through all the Statutory Rules and Orders. Hon. Members will remember that we had an intimation that there would be less delegated legislation now, but there have been about 1,879 Orders this year up to now. But we are also in the difficulty that we have to go through the patient and laborious speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the main Question to find out whether he picked out any particular Regulation and gave any intimation what he was going to do with it in a week or two. He made reference, I believe, to 28 Regulations. So we start with a book which is inaccurate and two years out of date. We then refer to the debate of last week and try to find out whether any intimation was given about Regulation 16. A Bill introduced concurrently in another place was not here at all, and I was only able to obtain a copy by going across to another place and getting an officer to let me have a copy. Unfortunately, I have lost it.
10.45 p.m.
I take it that it is fair to refer to the debate of 1950 on this matter, because we had the advantage then of the speech of the present Solicitor-General. This is what he said in reference to this subject last year:
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 10, to leave out Regulation sixteen (Stopping up or diversion of highways for purposes of open-cast coal and generating stations).
I am sure the Home Secretary will recognise this issue because we have discussed it before, although it was some time ago and I expect he is still occupying the same position on the Council for the Preservation of Footpaths and Highways, and things of that sort.
I do not know what "things of that sort" are unless they are waterways, which were referred to later.
I make no apology for raising the question of the retention of this Defence Regulation again tonight. I do so for the reason that there are ample powers, both under the old Highways Act and the quarter sessions procedure and new powers under Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act for closing highways where that is necessary to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2589–2591.]
That opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman on this matter was a very

forceful opinion then. One might well say that, since his new and added lustre, one may regard it as having even more force and even more importance. And on that occasion too he had the good fortune—always the very good fortune in this House—to be seconded and supported by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury. So that there was no question but that the Amendment then to annul this Regulation was put forward with some force.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said last time that they were talking only about electricity generating stations and in fact they secured from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power an undertaking that the Regulations had virtually ceased to apply to generating stations; that it was, in fact, applying to only one at that moment, the works in Stewart Street, Manchester, and the moment that had finished it would never apply again. My recollection is that the words have been omitted from the Regulation since. I am not sure that has been done, but a clear undertaking was given which would have the same effect for all practical purposes that the powers would not be exercised with respect to electricity generating stations.
But it is not fair to say that the debate is limited to that point only. There are serious questions about why we are continuing opencast coal. I am bound to deplore the fact that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not here to assist us on this occasion, because he has expressed his views on opencast coal on so many occasions that they would have come with new force and relevance tonight. We are entitled to know what Her Majesty's Government intend with regard to this.
No reference has been made as yet to the stupendous contribution that the miners of Great Britain have made in the last 12 months to the financial solvency of the country and to the maintenance of employment generally. Certainly this tremendous success of a nationalised coal industry gives Her Majesty's Government a chance to reconsider the question of how far it is intended seriously to consider the mining of opencast coal.
I do not say this in a critical sense. I think the arguments are finely balanced.


Everyone knows that, on the whole, opencast coalmining is not a thing we wanted particularly to do. It is apt to destroy and injure all too frequently a beautiful countryside. It is apt to take many acres of valuable land away from farming for a considerable period. It is apt not to be possible to have a real re-instatement, however carefully it is done, although I pay great tribute to the way it has been tried over these years. And it involves all sorts of considerations in village life, such as the introduction of a large number of industrial workers into over-populated areas and the difficulties of accommodation and so on.
So I should have thought that before we were asked to renew this one for another 12 months, we should be given some indication of the general intention: what the ambit of the operations is likely to be; whether they are to be carried out on as large a scale as before, or only to be limited to those obvious examples of productive sites where they can be developed to great advantage—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the stopping up of highways.

Mr. Hale: I do not wish for a moment to do other than accept the observation you have made, Mr. Speaker, because in any event I have come to the end of the remarks I wished to make on that subject and there would, therefore, be no useful purpose served. However, I would say that it is purely for the purpose of opencast coal that this power is given. It is not now available in any circumstances unless we start opencast coalmining. Therefore I would venture respectfully to suggest that if we are not to discuss opencast coal, there is no point in the Regulation, and that it is relevant to us whether we are going on to do this, and to what extent.
There is another curious thing, if the words are still there; and I must here say quite frankly that I have not found out which are in and which are out; and how one can do so in the time available I do not know. We are discussing something like a couple of hundred Orders tonight. But the words to which I refer are those about watercourses. If those are still in, then I suggest that they could conveniently come out. Not that we could take away

watercourses, but as a purely legislative and administrative process, these words could be removed. Even if we on this side were originally responsible for this nonsense, I imagine that a conscientious Parliamentary draftsman has been responsible for their continuance. It would be interesting to know if this power has ever had to be used.
I have just one sentence in conclusion. The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) has made reference to the powers of quarter sessions for the closing of footways, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor-General made reference to it in 1950. That procedure at quarter sessions has been simplified to some extent, and that is welcome. I recall how, in my early days of practice, it was a long, laborious and expensive procedure designed, or so I always thought, purely for the benefit of the legal profession and not for those interested in the stopping up or destruction or preservation of footpaths.
I do put this matter quite seriously and sincerely to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because it would be a genuine contribution to this matter if he would say that he is prepared to reconsider the whole position as it obtains at present in relation to footpaths and their diversion. Could he try to make it simpler?
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) shakes his head. I know that that means that his first reaction is that he does not want to make it easier for footpaths to be closed. I agree with him. But diversions form another matter, and they do good very often for the public at large. I do not want to enable anyone to close footpaths with greater ease; but, at the same time, I do not believe it to be a good thing that a matter of this kind should be a subject for a long and costly process at law. I do hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider what I have said when he comes to look at the subject again.

Mr. J. Grimond: I should like to add to the plea which has been made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) as to why this Order must be kept in force; especially since, as we have heard, objection has been taken to it by hon. Members on the other side of the House. The onus lies with the Government to justify this


rather strange Order which is largely at the disposal of the Minister of Fuel and Power. When this matter was originally raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) he asked why, if this is such a useful Regulation to the Minister of Fuel and Power, it is confined to opencast coalmining.
There is the procedure at quarter sessions, to which more than one hon. Member has already referred, and if that is not satisfactory, then it may well be unsatisfactory to Ministers other than the Minister of Fuel and Power and for other purposes than those in this Regulation. Can the Home Secretary give us any information about Scotland? We are very proud that in Scotland we have greater access to our land than the English have in England. The House must be very concerned about the curtailment of the highway and the free passage of the public thereon. Is this Regulation used for any other purpose and, if so, for what purpose?

Mr. Tom Brown: There are one or two questions I should like to put—

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member seconded the Amendment when I was out of the Chair. If so, he has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Brown: Then I beg to second the Amendment. There are one or two questions—

Mr. Speaker: By the rules of the House, if the hon. Member has seconded the Amendment, he cannot speak again on the same Amendment.

Mr. Ede: You will recollect, Sir, that for the general convenience we had to deal with this Regulation very briefly on the previous occasion it was discussed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) merely seconded the Amendment pro forma in order that we might get on to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, which was the general desire on both sides of the House. I do hope in those circumstances that if my hon. Friend asks the leave of the House to speak again it will be granted.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to be reminded of the circumstances. Has the hon. Member the leave of the House?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Brown: I seconded the Amendment on the previous occasion because of the circumstances prevailing in the Chamber and I think I am entitled not to be pulled up by you, Sir, but to be complimented. I should like to put one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power on this very important Regulation. In my constituency we have suffered tremendously because of inroads which opencast mining has made on the countryside.
In the constituency I represent we have been giving deep-mined coal to this nation since the year 1540. Now the Government come along and despoil the countryside by making inroads on what little amenities we have. This Regulation gives power to divert or close footpaths or roads. They have full power to do that and they shelter behind the power given the Ministry by the Regulation. We have approached them on a number of occasions and they always tell us, "We are very sorry but we have to work this district because coal is deposited here."
I am not accusing the Ministry of being unreasonable but one thing which troubles my constituents and myself is that the winning of opencast coal is let out to contract—is that so?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks) indicated assent.

Mr. Brown: Contractors are employed for the production of opencast coal at so much per ton. The Ministry, through their regional officers, negotiate with the local town council or authorities of the district but when the production of opencast coal is finished there the contractor moves his plant away to another site and the local authority is left with the job of restoring the footpaths or roads which have been diverted. That is my complaint, which I do not make from hearsay but from experience after visiting sites when opencast mining has finished.
11.0 p.m.
If this Regulation gives the Minister power to close footpaths and highways then it ought also to give him power to ensure that later they are re-opened. It gives him power to do one thing but


ignores the necessity of restoring to the public the right to use the footpaths and highways which have been closed. We accepted this position during the war when opencast working was extended, but we have continued to fight against it since 1941–42. We have tried to advance every conceivable argument against the Regulation but the Ministry continue to shelter behind it.
I put it to the Minister—and I could prove my argument if necessary that it is about time that opencast mining came to an end. However, I should be ruled out of order if I continued on that line. But so long as we have opencast mining we must approach the matter on a reasonable basis. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that when he closes or diverts a footpath or highway to facilitate the winning of coal he makes sure that the right of way is restored to the public later. It falls upon him morally if not legally to do that.
The difficulty we experience is in the letting of the work to contractors. I suggested that in the contract which is signed there should be a clause intimating that if the contractor has to close a footpath or roadway then he is under a legal responsibility to restore it immediately he has finished winning the coal. If the Minister would accept that suggestion he would be helping to avert the moods of anger which come over the people when they are denied access to local beauty spots such as Winstanley, Orrell, Upholland and Parbold. Some of these footpaths have been used over the centuries, especially at week-ends, when people like to walk through the fields and woods. The taking of that right from them means the taking away of part of their birthright. I plead that the use of these highways and foot paths should be restored to the public.

Mr. Harold Davies: I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that possibly there is no need for this Regulation now, and that hon. Members in all parts of the House are in difficulty because we are not clear about the expression:
extending an electricity generating station …
I ask hon. Gentlemen to note what this Regulation gives power to do. It says:
The Minister of Fuel and Power, if he considers it necessary to do so for the purpose

of working open-cast coal or constructing or extending an electricity generating station"—
I should like to know whether that is still retained—
may by order provide for the stopping up or diversion of any highway passing through, and for prohibiting or restricting the exercise of any right of way over or the use of any waterway passing through, any land used or appropriated for use for that purpose or any land adjoining such land.
These powers are fairly wide, because adjoining land may extend to a whole area. In my constituency we have this opencast problem, and where there has been restoration not only are pathways not properly constructed but the waterways may be left neglected. Some of the finest fishermen in Britain are the miners. They love a sport which takes them at the week-ends into the quietude of woods and riverside. But it has been brought to my notice in my own area that water has become polluted. If, under this Regulation, a river is polluted or fish are diverted from the river or even killed, we have no power to say that the river must be re-stocked with fish for the sake of a sport that has been going on for centuries.
This House has a duty to protect ancient fishing rights, and we should have some understanding from the Government Front Bench tonight on this subject, as well as on the subject of pathways. What is the view of the Government about the re-stocking of rivers that have been de-fished because of opencast mining? [Interruption.] That is a good word. Could we have an assurance that the Minister of Fuel and Power will do his utmost to see that rivers are reconditioned?
Contractors carry out this job and they naturally first seek to produce coal. The Minister has to weigh the balance of national need, national security, and national desires against local ones. But with the magnificent work being done as a result of nationalisation of mines and with present progress in the development of coalmining areas, I believe there is no longer any need for these drastic powers to be in the hands of any one Minister.
Later, we shall be discussing the possibility of the Secretary of State for War demanding agricultural land. Who are the arbiters in a struggle with the Minister of Fuel and Power for an area where there is opencast coal and with the War


Office for an area wanted for military exercises? Does anything come before the House to enable us to make the decision, or is it decided by officials outside the House? In the battle of trowel versus plough we are losing agricultural land at the rate of 50,000 acres a year, and we have already lost nearly 500,000 acres of agricultural land. Some day all this must stop, or this country will find its balance of payments problem insoluble. I beg the Minister to reconsider this Regulation and, if possible, withdraw it, because it is not a necessary Regulation at this period in our history.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It may assist the House, in view of the different lines the debate is taking from past years, if I said something now, particularly on the aspect of footpaths and the closing of them. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is, as we all know, exceedingly interested in the whole question of footpaths, and from years gone by he may recall that I can claim some credit for assisting in that matter when my interests were, perhaps, more agricultural than fuel and power. I can assure him and other hon. Gentleman that the question of footpaths, and the ancient right of access, as one hon. Member put it, is a matter with which I have the most sincere sympathy possible, and I am frankly surprised to have heard this evening suggestions that, where it has been necessary for us temporarily to stop up or divert footpaths, there has been any question at all of there not being restored.
It may not always be the case that they are restored in exactly the same position as before. I quite agree that when we remove the soil from under a footpath it may be difficult to replace the footpath exactly where it was before, but equally in the general restoration of opencast sites which takes place it may very well be more convenient for local people and may meet their desires better to have the footpath restored in a slightly different position, and I do not think it would be wrong for us to do that.
I am surprised, particularly, at the information given to us by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who spoke of the anxiety about footpaths not being restored at all. Certainly, I have never received any intimation that that has not been done. I have never heard any complaints of it at all, and if either the hon.

Gentleman or any other hon. Member of the House has any information on the failure to restore a footpath or highway after we have had to close it temporarily for opencast coal working. I should be very grateful indeed to have particulars, and I will make inquiries about it.

Mr. T. Brown: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The point I was trying to make was that when a footpath is taken away it may be that up to 60 feet of the overburden, as it is called, is removed, and that when the coal is extracted, the rock strata, subsoil and soil have to be replaced, and it takes a number of years before consolidation is complete. It is going on all the time. The point of restoration comes along when the footpath has to be re-surfaced, and that is when we get the complaints. It is all very well to replace the overburden, but the work demands continuous supervision until consolidation has taken place and the footpath can be restored as near the original position as possible.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am hopeful that we might find that the cases to which he has referred are cases of a certain age, because of recent years the procedure for restoration has been different. Recently, the procedure has been that, after the actual contracting work has been completed, by which I mean the winning of the coal, the National Coal Board contact the Ministry of Agriculture, who have previously surveyed the site before the work started, and they decide how the restoration should take place. In effect, the site is handed over to them for their directions as to restoration, and I should be very surprised if the sites dealt with in that way in recent years should be found to have the consolidated footpaths breaking up or not properly consolidated when the final date for restoration has been reached.
May I now deal with one or two other points made during the debate? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked particularly what the situation was in Scotland. I can assure him that it is exactly the same as in England; we do not discriminate against Scotland at all. I hope that may be of some reassurance to him.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) asked particularly about


water-ways, and hoped that we should be able to dispense with the power so far as they were concerned. I am afraid that is not possible. From time to time we find there are water-ways which run through a site, although it is not a frequent occurrence. But if there is a stream running through an opencast site it has to be diverted in some way or other. We must have the power to do that, although we are loth to exercise it for the purely practical reason that it is difficult to deal with a running stream.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: Where it is necessary to divert water of that type, what consultation is there with either the catchment board or the Ministry of Agriculture? I have in mind a case in the West Midlands where a diversion has resulted in a certain stream being made unfit for cattle to drink from.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is a practical example of the reason why we are disinclined to do it, because once we start tampering with water we do not know what may happen. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not enter into this work at all, whether in connection with land or water, without the fullest consultation with the agricultural interests and the local authorities, and the planning interests as well. Although I am not personally seized of the point, I have not the slightest doubt that any catchment board concerned would have to come into the consultation. But if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put four points in moving the Amendment with which I should like to deal, because they collect together all the other points which have been raised. The first was a novel one, which I do not think has been raised before. He said that if ironstone opencast working had got on without this Regulation why should not coal opencast working do the same? That is a shrewd point, but we can parry it easily because there is a great deal of difference between the two. The average working life of an ironstone opencast working is from 15 to 20 years, whereas that of an opencast coal working is from two to three

years, and there are fewer sites for ironstone than for coal. At any given time there are about 40 sites for ironstone and about 100 for coal.
The third point that was made was that ironstone working started a long time ago and was able to start under the old system, either under the Town and Country Planning Acts and those which preceded them, or the Highways Act to which reference has been made. Opencast coal mining started during the war under the Defence Regulations, and especially the one with which we are concerned with tonight, Defence Regulation 16. That brings us to the second point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is the difficulty in which we find ourselves in changing the present system. It would involve a break in the pipe-line of production of opencast coal.
The closure of a footpath under the Town and Country Planning Acts involves a minimum period of four months, and the average period is probably about six months. The procedure under the Highways Act is not suitable. For one thing, it can only come into operation on a permanent basis, and we are very anxious not to have to take powers permanently to stop up highways. All we want is to divert or stop them up temporarily while the work is going on, and then to restore them for use. That is the main reason, but there are a number of other practical objections why the Highway Act cannot be used.
Ironstone working is a longer planned operation altogether. There is plenty of time to make application under the Act. In opencast coal working the situation proceeds so rapidly that the contractors follow up immediately the prospecting has been completed, opening fresh sites every fortnight. If we suddenly switched from one procedure in which a delay of three to four weeks is sustained to another procedure with a delay lasting from four to six months the whole sequence of operations would be interrupted. The practical result of changing the system at present would be a loss to this country calculated at not less than three million tons of coal, and that is a thing which we simply cannot contemplate at present.

Mr. Hale: Why does it take four months? Would the hon. Gentleman explain why the procedure takes this time?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not think it is necessary for me to go into that. The hon. Gentleman, who is exceedingly well versed in the Mineral Workings Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, can go through the procedure himself. Once the whole machinery is put into operation the minimum time it takes to get through without objection is a matter of four months. With objections, the period runs up to a year. The average time would be a period of about six months.
The further point originally put to me, and made again this evening, is: if we have to have this power, why do we not make it a statutory power in an Act of Parliament instead of a Regulation. That is a perfectly fair point and one with which I would have great sympathy, because I have no love for Regulations, but it would have a disastrous psychological effect. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides have said that they want to get rid of opencast coal working. They do not want it to become a permanency. Nor do they want to consolidate it into one of the natural operations which go on throughout the country. If we stop making this an annual procedure and make it permanent by putting it into a statute, it is simply going to make it still more difficult to bring to an end opencast coal working.
There is a further point which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who has been doing his homework better than the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. It is perfectly true that the point about electricity generating has been the subject of assurances from people speaking from this Box for a number of years. I do not propose to refer to any except those given by myself. Last year I said:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in so far as this Regulation applies to electricity generating stations it will be done away with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 1095.]
Not very long after—on 4th December, 1951, we made a Statutory Instrument, No. 2115 of 1951, which was laid on 5th December, and came into operation on 9th December. The effect of that Regulation was specifically to revoke the words in Regulation 16
or considering or extending an electricity generating station.
Since 9th December last those words have been revoked and we have lived up to the assurance which we gave.
I think I have covered all the points which have been raised during the debate. I hope that the House is satisfied about the question of the electricity generating station—

Mr. T. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised concerning the terms of the contract to the contractor, and about making it compulsory for him to restore the footpath or roadway which he has taken from the people?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I apologise. I did not intend to ignore that point. It is not so much for the contractor as for us; it is our responsibility. Now it is the National Coal Board's responsibility. It really comes down to the point of finding where the job has not been done. Certainly when the land is restored the footpath or highway should be restored with it. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have any cases in which that has not been done, I should be very glad indeed to look into them.

Mr. Brown: I should be happy to do that.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In conclusion, I think the House may well be satisfied on the electricity side. I hope very much that I have succeeded in satisfying hon. Members that, so far as opencast coal working is concerned, we do not like having to do it; we hope to be able to prevent it becoming a permanency; it would be disastrous for the interests of the country, by virtue of the interruption to coal production which would result, if we did have to change the system by going over to the Town and Country Planning Act provisions; we only use the Regulation for this purpose as little as necessary, and we hope that we shall be able to do away with it as soon as possible.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I was hoping to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary before he sat down, but now that I have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I may be able to deal with it at slightly greater length. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can indicate to the House on how many occasions in, say, the last 12 months the Ministry have found it necessary to use the powers under Regulation 16. I am bound to say—and here I


may be striking a note which is slightly discordant compared with that struck by some of my hon. Friends—that I find myself in considerable sympathy with the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary about reliance upon the procedures which the law provides other than the procedure under Regulation 16.
As one who occasionally has had the privilege of stopping up highways, or diverting them for local authorities, I must say the procedure is full of pitfalls. There are all the processes—the two justices visiting the site, a notice at each end of the highway to be stopped, the procedure about the quarter sessions and the enrolment subsequently. It really is a happy hunting ground, if I may say, for the lawyers, and for that reason, of course, is a very worthy procedure indeed, and I make no complaint about it. But for a Ministry anxious to promote an urgent public duty in the public interest, I can well understand the Ministry desiring to retain these powers.
I am bound to say also that from my limited knowledge and experience of the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act I should have thought the estimate of time given by the Parliamentary Secretary was, unfortunately, very near the truth. It may, perhaps, not reflect very much credit on those engaged in these matters. On the other hand, the protection of highways and of footpaths is a very important matter, and our ancestors, in their wisdom in the past, no doubt thought it right to put these technical difficulties in the way.
Nevertheless, if the fact be that there is a continuing need for our country that this opencast mining should take place—and I am bound to say that I am impressed with what the hon. Gentleman said on that point—I think that there is force in the suggestion that powers of this kind should be retained; but it would strengthen my support for the retention of these powers if I were to be told that there really have been several occasions—putting it no higher than that—in the last 12 months when these powers have been needed.
11.30 p.m.
I echo, in conclusion, the desire of most of us in this House—certainly on this side of the House—now to see these powers being put in proper legislative form. I

appreciate that there is a certain inhibition in the case of opencast mining, but I think from time to time throughout the debate we shall be referring again to the fact that it is really deplorable that so many years after the state of emergency which gave birth to these Regulations we are still going through the somewhat haphazard process in this House of taking them piecemeal in this way. Here I express the desire expressed at the opening of the debate that something should be done quickly so that we may deal with this better in future years.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I do not want to delay the House for more than one moment, but because I seconded last year an Amendment to annul this particular Regulation, in order to get the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to see if they had changed their views upon it, perhaps the House will allow me one or two remarks that I shall make as briefly, I hope, as the remarks I made when I seconded last time.
First of all, the whole form in which these Regulations is found shows how absurd and ridiculous it is to go along re-enacting them exactly in this form. These are really for the security of the State, and the Regulation is headed "Access to certain Premises and Areas." These are Regulations concerning "Assisting the Enemy and Sabotage." There is left only one Regulation which deals with the carriage of fireworks in railway trains. The whole form of the thing is absolutely absurd. And that brings me to what was described by some people as the "olive branch" offered by the Home Secretary. I do not think it was an olive branch at all. It was one of those sorts of gestures which appear on the benches opposite as soon as they find themselves in Parliamentary difficulties.
Hon. Members may remember that we had a Select Committee to consider the Army Act, when they found that they could not carry it through in any other way. But why did we not have this Select Committee appointed a year ago? Hon. Members opposite got elected to this House upon the pledge that they were going to look into each of these Regulations individually. Now the Leader of the House, who was so active in previous debates, who spoke himself


at some considerable length on this particular Regulation once upon a time, is not even in his place, and he chooses a time for the debate when the whole of his hon. Friends, with the possible exception, I think—because I have seen some slight stirrings in that quarter—of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), apparently are unable or not allowed to speak.
It does really make an absolute farce of any democratic approach to these matters, which hon. Members opposite told the people when they were in opposition that the Government had thrust upon them and must be discussed, when we have to deal with them at so late an hour at night that we cannot give them full attention, because if we do we shall lose other important business.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out line 13.
The somnolent benches opposite seem to have been stirred into slight risibility because my hon. Friends, having had an excellent explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, did not want to press their Amendment to a division. I know that it is not the purpose of those on the benches opposite to consider these matters from the point of view of cold reason. They just believe in the brute force of the Government majority. I congratulate my hon. Friends on not yielding to the desire they obviously had of inflicting a defeat in the Division lobbies, but enabling this Regulation to be carried on for another 12 months.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary welcomes the opportunity we are giving him, through moving this Amendment, to explain his policy in relation to Regulation 45A. Like the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) I regret that the hour is so late, when we could have had a discussion earlier today, in which a number of hon. Gentlemen could have joined. But I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree when I say that it is incumbent on the Government to explain their policy in relation to this Regulation. It is far-reaching and gives wide powers. What

is more, at first sight it seems to be contradictory to one of the major items of policy which the Government have carried through during the last year, and on which we congratulate them.
They have, among their major measures in the administrative and legislative field, abolished from this country the evil of the civilian identity card. That is a great accomplishment. It naturally falls that we wonder what is their attitude to the identity card which has at the moment to be held by seamen. If, on the face of it there seems some discrepancy I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will welcome the opportunity of being able to explain the apparent difference in policy in this matter as between civilians and seamen.
The Regulation provides for the issue of identity cards to seamen and all persons employed upon, or engaged upon, ships, whether they are British ships or not. It is far-reaching in the sense that a man who does not possess such an identity card may be refused a job aboard a ship, whether British or not, if it falls within the terms of the Order. That is a denial of the liberty of the subject which, unless it can be justified, will clearly concern hon. Members, and particularly the representative of the Liberal Party. I am glad to see that he is to give us support.
The first question I want to address to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether it is the case today that any persons who are engaged or ordinarily employed on non-British ships are required to hold seamen's identity cards. I can understand that during the war, when Hitler had overrun Europe and ships had fled to our ports from Scandinavia and the Low Countries and were based on British ports, it was natural for the Government of the day to desire that those who were serving on such ships, and even in British ships, should carry seamen's identity cards.
That time has long since gone. It existed after the war because, as the Parliamentary Secretary undoubtedly remembers, a large number of foreign ships did not return to either the Scandinavian or Low Countries until some time after the conclusion of hostilities, and while civilians were holding identity cards in this country, no doubt there was a case for requiring that foreign seamen serving


on these ships should also hold identity cards. However, I would have hazarded the quess that those ships have now disappeared from our shores, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is essential to continue in the Regulation the words, "or not" as applying to persons who are not employed upon British ships and yet may be required to carry seamen's identity cards. I have no doubt he will be able to tell me in what circumstances he is asking the House to continue this part of the Regulation.
My next question is also an important one, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will readily see why. What machinery is employed for the surrender of these cards by persons who have been engaged on these foreign ships sailing from our ports who are now required to surrender them? The House will see that there is provision in the Regulation that they shall be required to give up their identity cards
in such circumstances as may be specified in the order.
It is not for me to guess what those circumstances are. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me what is the machinery for surrendering those cards?
I take it that when a ship finally leaves these shores to return to its home port and be based abroad, wherever it may be, there comes a moment when the persons concerned do not return there any more. Do the identity cards then disappear into the Continent? Is there a black market in seamen's identity cards on the Continent? Can they be sold for 50 cigarettes or bought for a pound of coffee? I notice some signs of mirth but this is important because, in paragraph (c) it is required that a man may be prohibited from serving aboard a ship unless he actually holds such a card.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and I probably have more seamen as constituents than any other two hon. Members of this House. One of my constituents is a coloured seaman who is a Somali. He settled in this country in 1918, was issued with a seaman's identity card at the beginning of the war, and sailed in British ships for a long time. He fell ill in a foreign port in the Middle East. He was discharged from the ship.
He was hospitalised, if I may use that horrible term—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Must I withdraw it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, I withdraw the term "hospitalised" and say that he was unfortunately required to spend several months in a hospital. We are glad to see here the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be able to join in and give us some advice about this problem?
This seaman, no doubt, under the Regulations of the Ministry of Transport, should have been returned to the United Kingdom as a "distressed British seaman"—D.B.S. is the term applied, I believe—because that is an obligation laid upon the shipowners when seamen are stranded away from their home ports either because of illness or because they have missed their ship. In fact, because this man was a coloured seaman, he was, for reasons which I need not go into, unable to secure repatriation. I know the law, and so does the Parliamentary Secretary, but we also know that in some of these Middle Eastern countries it is more easy to state it than to get it applied. I am speaking of 1946.
This constituent had lost his seaman's identity card. When he tried to get employment in a British ship at the port where he had been in hospital, he was refused employment on the ground that he had no card. This is obviously a matter of very considerable importance. He had his discharge book and I should have thought that that would have been sufficient proof of his bona fides and would have enabled him to get a job in order to get back to this country. But, he had eventually to pay his passage back—and the Somalis have ways of raising the means necessary to get back. This coloured man returned and lived in Lowden-square, Cardiff—a well-known resort—and was able to establish his identity as a British subject and be issued with a card.
11.45 p.m.
But the point is that this man was denied employment for, so I am told, some four months while trying to get back from the Middle East by working as a seaman although because, and only because he had no card, he had to pay for his own passage. Although I have quoted an example which is rather old,


it is a good example, and I would ask if it is necessary to continue the part of the Regulation which prohibits persons, or classes of persons, from obtaining employment?
Another question is in regard to the discharge book itself. It might well be asked whether, as the discharge book was in itself a sufficient means of identification for a seaman before the war, should it not be sufficient today? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, I am sure, will know that the seaman's discharge book, issued, I believe, by the Registrar-General of Shipping, contains the man's registered number by which he can be identified, and also contains his photograph, details of his birth, and his signature; or, if he cannot write, it contains his fingerprints. So, there is a complete record there.
A difficulty, perhaps, is that as these discharge books are not in the keeping of the seamen when at sea, they cease to be means of identification when the seamen have handed them over. When a seaman signs articles he is required to hand over his book, which is retained until such time as the trip is completed, and the man signs off, having completed his engagement. His character is stamped in the book, together with his record of efficiency, and so that forms a means of identification as well as a character for the man himself. But, if the book is retained locked up in the master's safe in his cabin—the book has to be safely kept—then when the seaman goes ashore, he carries no means of identification in a foreign port.
I am not resisting this Regulation. I think, indeed, that there may be a very good case for saying that, although the Government have abolished the civilian identity card, the seaman's card might well be retained for purposes of identification, at any rate in foreign ports. If the right hon. Gentleman says that, then I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to divide on this Regulation.
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to enter into discussions with the National Union of Seamen and the Navigator and Engineer Officers' Union, both of which unions represent the seamen and officers, I believe almost to the extent of 100 per cent. I know they have views on the value of these

identity cards. I think it is incumbent on the Government to tell us in what circumstances they wish to continue parts of this Regulation which seem to be archaic in the sense that they were properly applicable in a time of hostilities, but now seem in some ways to have outgrown their usefulness. Secondly, they should tell us whether they intend to turn this Regulation into permanent legislation. If they did so, I think we should view it sympathetically.
It may be argued by the Parliamentary Secretary that eventually he will wish to get rid of this power because passports can take the place of seamen's identity cards. I hope he will not take that view because I was able to unearth from one of my constituents cases only six months ago which showed that although the normal civilian has a passport issued to him for a period of five years, a number of coloured seamen have passports issued to them for a period of only 12 months. I wonder if the Home Secretary is aware of that? It seemed to me at the time—and I raised the matter with his Department—a matter of which he should have some cognizance. There are particular reasons, but I should be out of order if I went into them tonight. This seems to be imposing a hardship on coloured seamen which is not borne by other people who require passports.
The final question I want to put refers to paragraph (2) of the Regulation. That is how it applies in relation to aircraft. We are fortunate in having a Minister who is not only the Minister of Transport but also Minister of Civil Aviation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is fully armed on the Regulation as it applies to aircraft flying from airports in this country to airports overseas. I would be glad to know from him—as I am sure the House would be—whether these provisions have been applied to crews of aircraft, how many cards have been issued, whether this Regulation has been applied—this is the significant point—in such a way to foreign aircraft using our airfields as possibly to prohibit the employment of a British subject in a foreign aircraft unless he has an identity card of this description.
As I read sub-paragraph (1, c) such a situation might be possible. I feel, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will


feel, that the exercise of such a powerful right and sanction by the Government would not be tolerable in the circumstances of today, whatever conditions might be if we were once more engaged in a period of hostilities. Altogether, we feel that there is a very good case for having a statement from the Government in reply to the questions which I hope I have put temperately and clearly, so that we should know what is in the mind of the Government about the future and to know to what extent they are using the very onerous powers conferred on a previous Government in different circumstances for a particular emergency.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I beg to second the Amendment.
Seamen in my constituency are not affected, but I second the Amendment because I should like to have information about the extent to which negotiations have taken place with seamen's trade unions as to the continuance of this Regulation in its present form. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) dealt extensively with the problems which arise, I simply content myself with the point about trade union negotiations.

Mr. Grimond: As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, the party to which I belong had a humble role in precipitating the storm which blew away the civilian identity card. On the whole, I think that it was a good job of work. On the other hand, I must say that, in cases where it can be shown that identity cards serve a useful purpose, I have never felt that they are such a badge of servitude that they should necessarily be torn up without further ado.
There may be certain reasons in the case of seamen which make it desirable that they should carry some means of identification. If the Parliamentary Secretary assures us that it is necessary that seamen should have them, and that there is no appropriate system other than some form of identity card, then we should listen sympathetically. I cannot but think that if he had been on this side of the House he would have been very active this evening. No doubt his defence of this Regulation will be highly convincing in spite of that.
If these are the reasons, would it not be better to have permanent legislation in this case? In the other case there were reasons against legislation which I do not think can be said to apply to this Regulation. Secondly, it seems to me that the penalty is extremely severe. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East mentioned the case of a man who was kept out of employment for some time through not having an identity card, but the Regulation actually allows for the total prohibition of employment to anyone who has not got an identity card. That seems a penalty out of all proportion to the offence, which may not be an offence at all. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is really necessary to keep that provision in the Regulation, if indeed the Regulation is necessary at all.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The port of Bristol, which I represent, in common with the Parliamentary Secretary and other hon. Members, is one that is obviously intimately affected by this Regulation. I do not share the strong views of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about the abolition of the identity card. It never seemed to me that the presence or absence of an identity card in one's wallet mattered a great deal one way or the other. No one ever referred to me as "AYA 6310896", and I should not have much minded if they had; but I notice that many hon. Members opposite who objected to the badge of servitude provided by the identity card are only too glad to have on their motor cars the House of Commons Motor Club badge in the hope that when they drive to Westminster the police will recognise their special position.
I do not myself regard the House of Commons Motor Club badge as a badge of servitude any more than I did the identity card. I wish to ask two questions. I reinforce the plea made by various hon. Members about the circumstances in which a seaman is required to surrender the identity card. Obviously, this Regulation constitutes a simple licence. If a man's licence is removed—and we are told that it may be by a competent authority at any time and in any circumstances as may be specified—then he loses the hope of employment.
In peace-time it is essential that there should be safeguards to prevent a man from being penalised in that way. I appreciate that, aside from the general convenience of having an identity card for seamen in time of peace, one has to consider the security aspect in the event of war. Then it might be necessary to remove a man's identity card for no other reason than that it might be a danger to have the man at sea in a ship which was carrying vital supplies. I should be the last to try to prevent the Government from keeping emergency powers of that kind if they were necessary.
But in time of peace, if a man is called on to surrender his identity card, there ought to be a form of appeal which he can use to ensure that no mistake occurs or that he is not penalised for any wrong purpose. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what are the circumstances in which a sailor may be required to surrender his identity card; what form of appeal he has; in how many cases there have been surrenders called for in the last convenient period; and what appeals have taken place, if that indeed is possible.
I should like to know how many appeals were upheld and how many were turned down. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could answer some of the questions which have been put to him before we come to a decision on this Amendment.

12 midnight.

Mr. Irvine: It is worth pointing out that this Regulation provides an example of the shoddiness that so often characterises this type of provision. The effect of paragraph (2) is to make the whole Regulation applicable to airmen. At first reading it is applicable only to seamen travelling in aircraft, but the wording of the paragraph embraces all airmen. It is, therefore, as a matter of drafting, very undesirable that the marginal title should be "Issue of identity cards to seamen." It is a relatively small point, but worthy of comment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): The House will feel grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for raising this matter and giving us the opportunity of a short debate on it. I will begin with

the apparent anomaly of the abolition of the civilian identity card within our shores and its retention for seamen. The answer briefly is that unhappily the days have gone, ever since the outbreak of the war, when it was possible for a British seaman to land in a foreign port merely on a chit signed by the master of the ship saying that he was allowed ashore for so many hours.
One of the results of the long war, involving so many countries, has been a general tightening up all over the world of the immigration regulations. All countries appear to have become security-minded to an extent that never existed before 1939. The whole object of these identity cards was to protect our seamen when ashore in foreign ports from various incidents to which they might have been subject.
May I deal with the alternatives which immediately spring to mind? The House will realise at once that the system of passports and visas is far too cumbrous for this particular purpose. Ships are frequently diverted when at sea from one destination to another. It never was the case that the passport system was used generally for seamen, and the House will at once see the disadvantage it would involve. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, suggested that the discharge book might be a suitable document for the man to take ashore, but there is a good reason why it should remain in the possession of the master of the ship during such time as the man is serving in that capacity. The hon. Gentleman asked me if there was a black market in identity cards in foreign ports. I am not aware that there is. There certainly has been, and often was, a flourishing black market in discharge books, particularly in ports in the Middle East—I will not mention them by name—where the alcohol supplied was frequently of inferior quality and not at all a good thing for the retention of the man's normal mentality or, indeed, the retention of his discharge book.

Mr. James Hudson: What sort of alcohol is good for the retention of a man's normal mentality?

Mr. Braithwaite: Fortunately I should be out of order if I were to discuss with the hon. Gentleman his pet topic. I am sure that it will meet with his approval


if I say that a man under the influence of alcohol, inferior or otherwise, is apt to find himself in a position where a discharge book could be taken from him or even sold by him. In the discharge book, the name and photograph are easily changed, and it is in the man's interests that he should not be allowed to take a discharge book ashore in foreign ports.
I come to the chief point that will interest the House. In this country British seamen are given preferential rations. So long as the rationing system continues, these identity cards are a very convenient document for the man to have. It is primarily for that reason—here I answer the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—that the identity card has to be surrendered when the man leaves the sea. Were it to remain in his possession, it would give him the right to preferential rations when no longer at sea. It has to be surrendered at the port office when he goes ashore or when he leaves his ship for a temporary period.
Hon. Members have asked what is the position so far as aircraft and airmen are concerned. Paragraph 2 of the Regulation was, in fact, revoked by Statutory Instrument 2115 of 1951, and no longer applies, so that is out.

Mr. Callaghan: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that, but will he explain to me how I could have known that from this Regulation, and I shall not make the same mistake again?

Mr. Braithwaite: Perhaps I may confess that I only made myself cognisant of that fact half an hour ago. It is not always easy to follow these things, but this one has been revoked.
I now come to the point, raised by a number of hon. Gentlemen, as to why this Regulation should be continued and not embodied in a statute. The Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, has been introduced in another place, makes permanent provision for what are to be called British seamen's cards, without repeating one of the features of the war-time cards which was objectionable—the taking of fingerprints. It will be a much simpler document, and it will be accepted in foreign ports as a

form of seaman's passport which will enable him to go ashore, and it is until that Bill reaches the Statute Book, and only until then, that we desire to keep this Regulation in force.
To the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who raised the point specifically, I would say that this matter has been fully discussed with all those concerned—the shipowners, the officers and the men—and that all of them agree that the continuance of the present arrangements is essential for the time being. The House may be interested to know—although this is not strictly relevant to the Regulation we are discussing—that the shipowners have agreed to bear the cost of issuing the cards in future, which will amount to some £15,000 per annum, by accepting an increase in the fees charged for the engagement and discharge of seamen before the superintendent of a mercantile marine office, and that is how the machinery will operate.
There is one other matter. There are in existence at the moment about 150,000 of the war-time seamen's identity cards. We do not propose to recall all of them immediately and issue new cards with photographs, because the cost would be £40,000. But the turnover in the Mercantile Marine is fairly rapid, and we have a very excellent register which is kept in Cardiff—a wonderful piece of mechanism run by one of the oldest departments in the country formerly under the Board of Trade—which keeps very close track of everyone. It will be some time, however, before the new card is in the possession of every seaman. In the meantime, the old card will be accepted as evidence of the man's right and authority to go ashore in those circumstances.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not express disagreement with what has been said. Everyone will agree that this sort of thing ought not to be done in this form and in this way. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that, in the last week, there have come into operation, in connection with merchant shipping, the Merchant Shipping (Construction) Rules, 1952, a document of scores of pages and of great complexity, the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Rules, 1952, the Merchant Shipping (Fire Appliances) Rules, 1952, the Merchant


Shipping (Musters) Rules, 1952, the Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders) Rules, 1952, the Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Holds in Watertight Bulkheads) Rules, 1952, the Merchant Shipping (Accepted Safety Convention Certificates) Regulations, 1952, the Merchant Shipping (Safety Conventions) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations, 1952, the Merchant Shipping (Radio) Rules, 1952, which is a very substantial document costing, I think, half-a-crown, the Merchant Shipping (Direction Finders) Rules, 1952, the Merchant Shipping (Grain) Rules, 1952, and, last but one, the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Rules, 1952, and the Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations, 1952.
All of these came into force last week, and surely—

Mr. Braithwaite: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are we not discussing one Defence Regulation only, dealing with identity cards, and however industrious the hon. Member may have been, he is not out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been listening with great interest and wondering when the point was coming.

Mr. Hale: I was about to come to the point, and ask could we not add the Merchant Shipping (Potential Identification Certificate) Rules, 1952, and put them all in the one place?

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of making that suggestion when the Bill reaches us from another place. It does embody in a permanent statute these Defence Regulations which we are discussing. I may confess that I am not seized of all the subject matter of the documents to which the hon. Member has referred.
In reply to the hon. Member who raised the case of the seaman who found himself in hospital somewhere in the Middle East in 1946 and the difficulties he had about repatriation, naturally when these cases arise one does not know the circumstances. But had the man gone to the British consul he would have been issued with a sort of identity card for the purpose. The British consul in such parts is generally extremely helpful in these matters, and one cannot help feeling that some action would have been taken.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree that we do not know the circumstances of that case, but I quoted it as an example. The hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulties of a coloured man in going to a consul in a foreign port.

Mr. Braithwaite: I hope that when we have permanent legislation on a matter of this sort the House will watch carefully to see that the Bill is shaped in such a fashion as to do away with that necessity.
I hope I have indicated to the House the reasons why we desire the continuance of these identity cards. It is the desire of all sections of the industry, who agree that these cards are of value. I repeat that we hope the Defence Regulation will disappear very shortly and be embodied in permanent legislation.

Mr. Ede: Like other Members who have spoken in this debate, I also represent a seaport town. I know the value that men set on these documents and the difficulties they encounter when they mislay them or for some other reason these documents disappear. I am glad to hear that the negotiations between the various interests and the Ministry have reached such a stage that permanent legislation is actually in print, and before another place. That we are discussing this matter tonight and will have to discuss it again in a few weeks' time lends point to the Amendment I moved on the previous occasion to the effect that the Bill ought to have come here first; but we shall see it very shortly.
I wish to express my great pleasure at the fact that nothing will be done to jeopardise the retention of the discharge book in the safe of the master of the vessel when it is on the high seas or in a foreign port. There can be no blacker market than that which has sprung into existence for dealing with discharge books which, somehow or other, may have been got out of the master's safe. The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) raised of seamen being taken sick overseas, and then, possibly when they go into hospital and their belongings are taken away, losing their identity cards, is one which deserves close attention because it is sometimes very hard to convince a consul that the coloured man before him is a seaman who through no fault of his own has lost his identity


card. I sincerely hope that every effort will be made to make the new system workable.
The Parliamentary Secretary's speech did reveal something else. He told us that paragraph 2 had been disposed of by some Statutory Instrument that has been introduced since this book of Regulations was published. I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is about time we had a new edition of the book bringing these Defence Regulations completely up to date, and I hope as soon as this piece of permanent legislation—with, I hope, suitable additions to it during its passage through this House—is passed, we shall have a new edition of the Regulations that remain extant. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel, in view of the answer which has been given, that it will be possible to withdraw his Amendment.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the satisfactory explanation we have received, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in line 13, at the end, to insert:
Regulation forty-two CA (Unlawful gaming parties).
This is a Regulation which has been adopted nearly every year when the Regulations have been before the House, and some misgivings have been expressed in regard to it. I share them, but not to the extent that some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite did. Why in Coronation year should this Regulation not be thought worthy of continuance?
When this Regulation was introduced in the early days of the war it was aimed at certain undesirable people getting up parties to which young officers and officers of foreign armies were enticed where the old proverb "a fool and his money are soon parted" received constant exemplification. We shall have in the country, and particularly in London, during the few months round Coronation time a considerable number of foreigners who in the past have proved pretty easy game for the undesirable people who run these parties, and about whom no one wishes here to say a word in their defence, and I would have thought that

this year was a particularly unsuitable one to withdraw this Regulation.
I merely ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he will give us some indication that the police feel that, armed with these powers, they will be able to deal with the situation that may arise. I do not ask him for an indication of the way in which the police propose to outwit those people, for that would indeed be a poor service to render to the public, but perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us an assurance that he feels that the existing law without this will be adequate to deal with the subject.
In the Licensing Act which I introduced—part of which even evoked the admiration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that is saying something having regard to what he said about the rest of the Act—there are some Sections dealing with night clubs which, as far as I know, have worked quite satisfactorily. Therefore, I move this Amendment merely for the sake of getting information and some indication of the views of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis on the matter.

Mr. J. Hudson: I am interested in this as the Home Secretary will see from my having put my name down to the Amendment. I do not intend to spend any great time on the matter, because I know that the evil against which this Regulation was directed is very much mixed up with another evil dealt with by Regulation 55C, which I understand we are to debate a little later on.
Quite apart from the question of foreigners coming to this country in Coronation year, there are people in this country who are prepared to prey upon the gambling instincts—if I can put it in that way, quite respectfully—of much of our young manhood, and in the process generally utilising other adventitious aids in the form of alcohol of very doubtful quality. No one could say that they will get any beneficial results from the alcohol supplied in institutions of this sort.
The Coronation will bring not only foreigners but many of our own people into London, and they will be waited for by the same influences that waited for people during the war, which was a time of abnormality for many people,


particularly for men who were on their way back from the Front or on their way to the Front. I should have thought, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been particularly careful not to run the risk of removing this Regulation, and I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Let me say at once that I fully understand the reasons that have made the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend put down this Amendment for consideration and explanation. I am sure that the House will agree that, irrespective of party views, it is a very difficult road to walk in balancing between the desire that has been expressed from all quarters of the House to get rid of these war-time Regulations and the opinion in favour of particular Regulations which animates a number of hon. Members, again irrespective of party.
One of the criteria which has influenced me is that the Regulation contains methods of proof which a country jealous of its freedom would tolerate readily in time of war but would feel more doubt about in time of peace. The gist of this Regulation is to make it an offence for any person to be concerned in the organisation of any gaming party organised for gain, but the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will see that it goes on to say that if 10 or more persons are present at a gaming party the fact will be taken as evidence that it is an unlawful gaming party unless the persons concerned are able to prove either that the game was neither played nor intended to be played for money or money's worth, or that the party was not organised for gain. In other words, a very slight point which might hit many an innocent party is taken as the test for onus of proof to be placed on the defendant. Therefore, it is a Regulation which we ought to look at critically.
There are two stages in the reasons for its continuance which I am stating objectively to the best of my belief, and I hope that I am accurate. In the first place, it was very reasonably thought, if I may say so, by the right hon. Gentleman that it was a Regulation that should be kept until we had the report of the Royal Commission on Betting and Lotteries, but everyone knows the extreme difficulty of

legislating over the whole field covered by that Royal Commission; and I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had also in mind that, even if it were not possible to legislate over the whole field, it might be possible to find a measure of agreement in this part of the field where there is much archaic stuff.
I hope that the House will not object to my use of that term "stuff," because when we come to think of whist drives and the playing of cards in private clubs in methods of which we know, which do not offend the vast majority of people—games which, at any rate, those who play them think are games of skill—there is obviously a field, on that side of the matter, in which most people would like an alteration made in the direction other than restrictive.
But I have with regret come to the conclusion that it is impossible to contemplate that that legislation will come speedily, and, therefore, it did not seem to me that I had those grounds, which, I admit, were perfectly reasonable grounds, for continuing the Regulation on a temporary basis; and I do not think that anyone would consider that the Regulation in its present form was a suitable permanent contribution to our law.
I had to face, of course, the question which the right hon. Gentleman has again most properly put to me, namely, to consider the special position of this year and the next. Let me share with the House the information which I have. The highest number of prosecutions in any one year was during the war, as one would expect, and that was 30. From the end of the war until 1950 the numbers varied between 17 and 12. In 1951 there was rather an extraordinary position. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that he had in mind at the end of 1950 that 1951 was going to be Festival year. Obviously, we would attract a great number of foreign visitors, and the situation arose as to whether these parties would be arranged—I will not say, for their benefit, but obviously for the opposite of their benefit. Curiously enough in 1951 the number of prosecutions was only five. In the first six months of this year it was six. I frankly say that there have been another five since then, making 11 for roughly 11 months of this year.
12.30 a.m.
I felt that in view of the reduction, and especially in view of our experience in Festival year, the best method I could adopt was to apply the general wish of the House and not have any Regulation which I thought could be abandoned; but that I should take administrative action and impress on the Commissioner the necessity for keeping a very good look out—by methods which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it would be the opposite of useful to expatiate upon—to see that the danger which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned will be reduced to a minimum. That will be done.
There is one other point which I am sure everyone will appreciate: this is almost entirely a London problem. Therefore, a Regulation for the rest of the country would not be justified. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioner has in mind the considerations which weighed with him, and that if we find that there is an unexpected recrudescence I will not hesitate to ask the House for powers to deal with it.

Mr. Ede: I am completely satisfied with the answer. I do not think that these gaming parties are run for the benefit of anyone but the promoters. Many of us who served in the ranks of the Army know that it is possible to acquire skill in cards as a result of very expensive tuition. One would not desire that experience to be shared by too many. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Brown: I beg to move, to leave out line 14.
I find myself surprised that the Government should come along with this Regulation still in the form in which it is in this book. We were told in an earlier discussion that since this book was printed, and in recent months, there has been an unexpected and novel change. I do not know whether I am in the position of arguing about something which has been changed recently, because we are operating on a book which apparently is out of date.
This question of the taking of land by the Service Departments, or by the Ministry of Supply for what are alleged

to be the affairs of the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, or the Ministry of Supply, is serious. I frankly do not believe that the Government are using this Regulation in the form in which it appears in this book. I think that one of the absurdities we have here is that we are being asked to renew a Regulation providing for an operation which is not being carried out in the form stated.
One of the Parliamentary Secretary's biggest defences will be that the Regulation does not matter because the Government do not intend to work that way round. I am bound to argue on the assumption that the Regulation means what it says and that they will use it. If it is said, and I am sure it will be, "We do not act as harshly or as toughly as this," my point will be made for me. Why, in fact, again come forward with a Regulation which the Service Departments themselves know they dare not use and cannot use in this form? It is a matter of great regret that the Treasury Bench at the moment, graced by a number of distinguished hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, is not graced by a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, because this Regulation is a matter of considerable importance to the agricultural interests of this country, of which, the party opposite reckon to be the defenders.
Many vigorous speeches are made—I think sometimes rather exaggerated speeches—about the damage done by the loss of good farm land to all kinds of sources every year. We are told that 50,000 acres a year or more are being lost. We know that some of that, whatever we say in public, cannot be avoided, but it behoves us to make sure that we do not lose more than we need, that we do not lose better land than we have to, and that when we do lose it, we lose it under conditions that make the greatest possible provision for consultation with those who know just how serious a problem this is. The hon. Gentleman will be bold if he denies that this Regulation makes absolutely no provision for securing that we do not lose good agricultural land without adequate consultation with those who have food production at heart, and that we do not lose it at all where something else will do. The Regulation is in the widest possible form.
It is open to the present Government to say, "You were there for some years." Indeed, for nearly four years I played a


minor part in agriculture. They may say, "You kept it in this form; why come at us?" After all, we were operating in a period nearer to the end of the war than they are, and had we carried on we certainly would not have continued it in the form of a Defence Regulation. Had we still been the Government we would have replaced this by now with a much more suitable form of permanent legislation.
I do not deny that the Departments dealing with the Armed Forces of the Crown and the Ministry of Supply, which in some respects is a similar Department, need the land for essential purposes, but there must in times like these be provisions that do not appear in this Regulation. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to defend the proposition that, having had rather more than a year now, the Government are still unable to replace this Regulation with permanent provisions which enable adequate consideration of all the interested concerned. This Regulation, if it were operated as it stands, gives any Secretary of State, the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Minister of Supply the power by order to authorise, subject to any restrictions or conditions in the order, the use of any land specified thereon. Yet it excludes the Minister of Agriculture, the one most concerned.
Leaving aside for a moment my general argument, may I ask how many orders have been made in the past year under this Regulation? In how many cases have they sequestrated valuable agricultural land by orders made under this provision? I remember when I had some concern with this, coming under heavy fire from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) and other hon. Members from the Principality because they felt that the Principality has, in fact, had a pretty tough time at the hands of the Armed Forces in taking land.
Can I ask how many orders have, in fact, been made in the past year? I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will want to know how many have been made for the Principality; and, if any have been made, has any representative of the Service Departments gone to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for concurrence and

agreement for the taking over of that land? I will give the Under-Secretary the point that he has gone in almost every case.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) indicated assent.

Mr. Brown: But this Regulation does not provide for his going. If he chose not to do so, who can make him do it? Why have we not made some provision for what is common practice—what, in fact, is now being done?
Here we are acting by administrative arrangement, and those who have had experience of dealing with the Service Departments know that it is very easy for administrative arrangements to break down, especially when civilian Departments appear to be getting in the way. Administrative arrangements need to be backed up by something much stronger than a mere understanding.
Another question I should like to put is whether, under the orders made to take over land, protection is being inserted for the cultivators of the land. The Under-Secretary of State for Air made a speech at King's Lynn the other day about the work which the Air Ministry is doing with regard to the cultivation and drying of grass on airfields. There is a lot more I should like to know about this, and I congratulate the Department on what is being done. But do we, in the orders which we make under this Regulation, make any provision when land is taken over for the adequate cultivation of that land while the Service Departments are upon it?
We know that once the Service Departments get on land they put up a ring fence, and nobody is allowed to be round about, but do they realise that a lot of this land could go on being cultivated without any very great damage to their interests? I have been on Salisbury Plain and seen great areas of land being cultivated while in Service occupation. Various financial arrangements are made with the cultivators, who accept the risk of interference. Have the orders made during the past year provided arrangements for the existing cultivators to go on cultivating under the sequestration provisions under this Regulation? Of course, if no orders have been made—and I said


a moment ago that I do not know—then it is more difficult to understand what is going on.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned my Department, perhaps I should say that this Regulation does not concern land we take over in the sense of requisitioning. All this Regulation does is to control entry on to land adjoining bombing ranges so that people cannot wander about in the danger area. But it does nothing at all to restrict agriculture over those pieces of land in any way.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Brown: This gets very confusing. Far be it from me to suggest that the hon. Member has not read the Regulation and understood it; no doubt I have not understood it, but paragraph (1) says:
Without prejudice to any other of these Regulations a Secretary of Sate, the Admiralty or the Minister of Supply may by order authorise, subject to any restrictions and conditions imposed by the order, the use of any land specified therein for military purposes …
He may authorise that any land he designates in the order shall now be used for military purposes. That is not controlling people wandering about bombing ranges. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this Regulation is the one on which his right hon. Friend says, "There is an area on which I want to establish an aerodrome," or, "I want to establish a dump there," and use it for that purpose.

Mr. Ward: I must correct the right hon. Member. I am sure he is not purposely misleading the House, but I can assure him that this Regulation does not allow us to build an aerodrome on this sort of land at all. All it does is to allow us to control entry to this land. The only time we use it is when this land is adjacent to bombing ranges, or something of that sort, so that we can use it as a sort of marginal safety line.

Mr. Mitchison: On 9th April, 1952, in answer to a Question, we were told that the Service Departments have training rights under this Regulation over considerable areas of England, Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Brown: I may in fact have misled the hon. Gentleman by saying "build an aerodrome." I had four years experience and in fact what happens under the Regulation is that areas of land are declared to be training ground land over which the Military or Air Force have the right to run and, in the Order declaring it to be such, it is laid down to what extent anyone else shall have the right to go on the land. That is the position.

Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward indicated assent.

Mr. Brown: I was wrong about building an aerodrome, but this is a Regulation under which the Air Ministry can get hold of a piece of land and shut other people out.

Mr. Ward: Mr. Ward indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us what is being done under orders made this year. My experience in travelling about the country in the old days and recently has been that in fact agriculturists are shut out of the land unless violent action is taken.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that in my introduction I said that this Regulation does not entitled anyone to put up an agricultural case at the time. I know that administratively arrangements are made for the Minister of Agriculture to have a say, but there is nothing in this Regulation which enable him to do so. If the local commander chose to say that it was really quite impossible for him to do his training or preserve his security to have any farmers knocking about there, under this Regulation he would be entitled to do so. I am arguing that it is much too tough and strong a Regulation for these purposes.
We have been told quite recently that the training programme for next year is to be rather less than we previously envisaged. Fewer men are to be called up for the Army, and that presumably will make a difference to the area of land required for this purpose. Can the Under-Secretary tell us to what extent that means that land already taken under this Regulation and subject to an order is to be let free from the orders and returned immediately to the people who were previously cultivating it without any Service or security orders at all?
When an area has been taken over under an order made under this Regulation and it is subsequently decided to leave the land because it is no longer required for training purposes, how is the land left? Some damage will inevitably be done to fences and so on. Do the Department act as if that had an absolute essential requirement to put the fixed equipment back into the condition in which it was when they first took over?
My general proposition is that the Regulation is not being used by the Government in this form, and that the time when such a form of Regulation was justifiable has long passed. We ought to have replaced it by permanent legislation with much more suitable provisions. I should like to know how many orders the Government make under the Regulation, and how much land they are releasing from the scope of the orders they have made.
I should also like to know how many different groups of officials work on this matter. If anyone wants to try to reduce heads in Government service here is not a bad place at which to begin. I am not trying to be superior. I have a responsibility in this matter, and I accept it. But I guess that here in the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply, we have exactly parallel organisations with surveyors, officers and technicians of one kind or another all doing very much the same work. They are all checking each other.
One of the wretched problems in modern government is that we set up so many people to check each other. If we put this Regulation in permanent form, as the last Government were hoping to do, and concentrate the responsibility in one Department, which ought not to be a Service Department, we could have one set of people doing the whole job. I suggest that the Government will find that it will not cost them very much if they do not press for the renewal of this Regulation but instead bring in a permanent form of legislation.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: As the war has been over for some seven years, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that many opportunities should exist for cutting down the number of staff controlling these matters. How-

ever, I hope that the Air Ministry will think twice before they relax their hold on land in view of the large amount of money being spent on equipment which will mean that more training will be done with the additional aircraft coming into use.
The new aircraft are much faster than the old ones and, if bombing practice is to take place, larger areas will be needed to ensure safety to the public. I have visited a number of airfields, including Boscombe Down, which is controlled by the Ministry of Supply, and at which farming was taking place round the perimeter track. That ought to be encouraged everywhere. There is room for much closer liaison between the Services and the Ministry of Agriculture to encourage the cultivation of more of this land. Much of it is extremely good land which could produce food we require.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air, while retaining power to ensure the safety of the public, will ask station commanders and group commanders to see whether more land cannot be brought into cultivation. Closer liaison between the Department and the Ministry of Agriculture would probably make more land available to farmers. While it may be useful to have a farming scheme on each station, that is not enough. I gave a cup at the end of the war to Fighter Command for the best gardens in the command. That resulted in a certain amount of vegetables being raised, but not a large amount. The work needs to be done by farming experts. I hope that we shall have an assurance that more will be done to produce food on this valuable land.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Every Member who represents an agricultural constituency will support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and also by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). There is one caveat one might enter in passing. There were certain risks attending the development of gardens on R.A.F. stations, in war-time at any rate, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman may remember: they were aired at the time in this House in a rather embarrassing way.
I am rather sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Air intervened to


correct my right hon. Friend, as he thought. I know that he was trying to be helpful, as he always is. On this occasion I believe he was wrong. I have looked up and have here all the relevant documents, which no doubt he has studied also, and this Regulation does say that a Secretary of State may by order authorise "the use of any land …" etc., "for military and air force purposes" etc. At the bottom of the page, in para. 5, there is the definition:
In this Regulation the expressions 'military purposes' and 'air force purposes' have the meanings respectively assigned to those expressions by section twenty-three of the Military Lands Act, 1892," etc.
I have here the Military Lands Act. I hope that the Under-Secretary has refreshed his memory of it, although if he had I think he would not, perhaps, have interrupted as he did. Section 23 of the Act says that:
In this Act the expression 'military purposes' includes rifle or artillery practice, the building and enlarging of barracks and camps, the erection of butts, targets, batteries, and other accommodation, the storing of arms, military drill, and any other purposes connected with military matters approved by the Secretary of State.
The Air Force Order, 1918, simply transfers the same powers, in identical terms, to the Air Council and the Secretary of State for Air. I am willing to give way to the Under-Secretary, in the hope that he can clear this up.

Mr. Ward: I was trying to correct the impression which I felt the right hon. Gentleman was giving that by using this Regulation we were in some way interfering with agriculture. I am not concerned with the Army; my hon. Friend will answer for them. So far as the Air Force is concerned it is a very small amount of land—1,500 acres throughout the whole country.

An Hon. Member: Then why have the Regulation?

Mr. Ward: Because we need it. The only time we use it is to control the entry of persons on to 1,500 acres of land which surround our bombing ranges and which we control purely for safety reasons. That we merely want to keep unauthorised persons out of these areas does not mean that we interfere with agriculture.

Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying what he said before. When he reads HANSARD on Monday he will find that he gave the impression, no doubt unwittingly, that this Regulation did not really empower him to do some things to which my right hon. Friend was referring. I think he said the Regulation was only concerned with bombing ranges and so on. The Regulation itself is concerned with much wider powers and, after all, it is the Regulation as a whole that we are now discussing. The Regulation is quite sweeping in its use of such terms as "military purposes," "air force purposes" and so on.
Having disposed of that point, I would turn to a somewhat different point which has not yet been touched upon. I want to ask the Minister whether this is the Regulation—I take it that it probably is—under which orders are issued for the temporary stopping up of highways, as indicated under paragraph (1, c), in connection with the operations of the United States Air Force at present in this country. I do not know if that is the case, but I have a constituency interest, because an Order has just been, or is about to be, issued stopping up a road in my constituency between Wethersfield and Finchingfield, near the Wethersfield air station, and there is a good deal of feeling about it locally. Farmers and others have written to me, because it is a road used by farm-workers going to and from their work.
1.0 a.m.
The curious thing about it—and this is why I raise this point in interrogatory form, because I am not sure whether this is the Regulation under which the Order is made—is that this Order has actually been issued by the Ministry of Transport. Possibly that point can also be cleared up. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport is one of the persons referred to in the Regulation as persons to whom these powers can be delegated by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ward: The Ministry of Transport act for us in all matters affecting highways.

Mr. Driberg: Possibly, by the time the hon. Gentleman comes to reply, he will have verified with the Ministry of Transport whether this Order is made under this Regulation or not. Perhaps he can


check that? I have had some correspondence with the Minister of Transport about the case I have mentioned, and I may have to pray against the Order on some other occasion.
Meanwhile, in further reference to the same case, at Wethersfield in Essex, I must say at once that the Commanding Officer of the United States Air Force on that station has shown the greatest courtesy and consideration that he could to all farmers and other local interests involved, but none the less he has found it necessary, in what he conceives to be the interests of security, to close a road which the R.A.F. did not find it necessary to close during the Second World War, when that station was an R.A.F. This has naturally caused a good deal of inconvenience. Moreover, the road was actually closed before the Order was made. I do not know how or why that was done, since the Order has only just been made or is about to be made. Farm-workers going to their work in the morning found the road closed; they were stopped by American sentries, who asked them what their business was.
All this may be necessary for security reasons, but I feel that we should be very careful, in what is nominally peacetime, before we allow roads to be closed by the military, whether main roads or small country roads used by people engaged in agriculture.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that the road was closed for security, and not for safety reasons?

Mr. Driberg: The hon. and gallant Gentleman means safety in the sense of danger from aircraft? Yes, I am quite sure that the reason is security. I discussed the matter personally with the Commanding Officer of the station. There are tactical atomic bombs stored there. I am not giving away any secrets: all this has been published in the local Press.
It may be necessary to do this, but it is something that we should watch rather carefully: we cannot have roads closed all over the country indiscriminately, at the caprice of any commanding officer—unlike the one in this case, who has shown every consideration. One can imagine some commanding officers who

might take security so far as to put a five-mile cordon round their camps, or something like that. We want to be a bit careful before we encourage that sort of thing.
There is only one other point arising out of this Regulation which I wish to raise. One of the worst aspects of the taking over and the use of land by the military—I am sorry to say, by the Royal Air Force as much as anyone else—is the terrible wreckage that they leave behind them when they have finished using the land. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Air himself is painfully aware that large areas of our most beautiful countryside, not least in Essex and East Anglia, still have a desolate and devastated appearance as a result of their use during the last war.
There are the skeleton wrecks of huts from which windows and roofs have been removed, the concrete with weeds coming through the cracks in it, the miles of tangled barbed wire, and, generally, the hideous mess which still covers so much of our countryside, partly because the Service Departments always seem to leave that kind of mess behind them. We should, therefore, scrutinise very carefully Regulations such as this and resist any extension of their effects.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I am in the happy position that whatever Government has been in power I have always opposed this Regulation. I do so because I do not like it. It is much too severe, and I wish to know from the Under-Secretary of State what other powers there are for retaining land in the future beside those contained in this Regulation, and Regulation 51. I had a reply yesterday from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to the effect that the War Office retained 11,000 acres under this Regulation in Wales alone, and I am most anxious to know how long this Regulation is to remain. If it is to be done away with in twelve months' time what is to happen to the land leased by farmers to the War Office and what will happen about contracts of 14 and 21 years duration? I would like to know if it is possible for the War Office, when they take land under this Regulation to have more consultation with the local authorities and especially with the town planning committees in the counties.
I could give an instance of a case in which land was taken under this or some other Regulation, and an understanding was arrived at with the War Office that they would be very careful about what type of buildings they erected because of the proposed creation of a National Park in the area. To the surprise of everyone the War Office erected some hideous buildings right on the sky-line. That was a case where the War Office let us down completely. I hope that in the future there will be more consultation with the local authorities so that at least the local authorities will know what is to be done.
This Regulation gives the Service Departments absolute power, and the first thing a farmer may know about the Regulation being put into operation is what he hears in the market place in the course of conversation. That is quite wrong, and we should have an undertaking from the Under-Secretary that the local authorities and the farmers will be informed about what is happening. The powers contained in this Regulation interfere with farming a great deal. There is nothing in the Regulation with regard to notice of entry on to land.
I well remember, in Standing Committee on the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill, getting an Amendment accepted laying down that 14 days' notice of entry on to land should be given when any regulation came to be made under that Bill. Yet under the Regulation there is no provision for warning being given that land is to be used for training purposes. A red flag is supposed to be put up when training is in progress. The red flag has been up in some parts of my county since the end of the war. [Laughter.] I did not intend that remark in the sense in which hon. Gentlemen have taken it. We ought to see that when these powers are used there is greater consultation between the people concerned.
Then there is the question of stopping up highways. Just imagine a trunk road being stopped by the military under these powers. Yet they intend to do so in one case that I know, but the Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs has delayed action for 12 months. I hope he will stop this practice not only in my constituency but in North Wales as well. Let us know exactly what the War Office require in this respect. If they do want land let us

decide that they get it by compulsorily acquisition so that the farmers know where they are.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I am intervening now, not with any intention of trying to curtail the debate, but because I think misunderstanding and misconception of the powers under this Regulation have been evident in all the speeches made. I believe the easiest way to focus the attention of the House on the purposes of this Regulation, and the use to which it is being put, is to give a short history of what has happened under this Regulation. Regulation 52 gives the right to the three Services and the Ministry of Supply to make use of land as opposed to entering into possession of land, which power is available under Regulation 51.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I should appreciate that point were it not for the quotation made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). There the provision is "use … for military purposes," and the military purposes include taking land for building camps and barracks. If camps and barracks are built it is useless to talk of "use" other than in the sense of use with possession. I can see what happened. The drafting of the Defence Regulation was done quickly for war-time purposes, and it was intended to cover "use," and not "exclusive use," which is possession. That was done under the paragraph (1) of Regulation 52. Then when it came to defining military purposes it was overlooked that exclusive use or possession was included when the building of camps and barracks was involved. But it is quite wrong to say that this is merely a question of the use of land and not possession.

Mr. Hutchison: I was coming to the history of this Regulation, and the part it played. It relates to the use of land and the Regulation 51 related to the taking possession of land. There is a definite difference between the two. What I am going to say may make the situation clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The marginal note does not affect the construction, of course.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Hutchison: Quite true. During the war, Regulation 52 was used to make use of land which was needed urgently


for war purposes. It is an aftermath Regulation, if I may say so, and one for which there is a diminishing need, as I shall show later. At the end of the war we held in this country—the Services and the Ministries concerned—11 million acres of land under this Regulation. Most of this land has either been handed back already, or has been purchased where our need is a full-time need and an enduring one, or has become the subject of a lease where our need is a full-time need but not a permanent one.
I have said that the Regulation is one of diminishing value, though its value has not yet fully disappeared, as I hope I shall be able successfully to show the House. There remain held under this Regulation at the present time 120,000 acres as opposed to the 11 million acres, and a good proportion of this 120,000 acres is at the moment the subject of negotiation to purchase. Some is the subject of negotiation to lease. Some—and this is the point where the Regulation really comes into operation—is land for which we need only transitory or training rights; ephemeral needs and not enduring ones, and not whole-time needs.
In all these three categories we try to negotiate amicable settlements. Powers to buy or to lease compulsorily are not held in these Regulations at all but exist under the Defence Acts, and the Defence Acts provide that where there is compulsory buying or compulsory leasing there is recourse to arbitration on the question of the price of the land. There remains only for our consideration now the third fraction of this 120,000 acres, namely, the land which is occasionally needed, and often only for very short periods. Such needs, described as "non-damage training needs," include such purposes as week-end infantry training camps for the use of the Territorial Army; secondly, access to land in order to be able to approach land on which large-scale manoeuvres are being held which is already in our possession—places like Salisbury Plain and Aldershot—but to approach which for a short period of the year troops may have to move over other land in order to get to the area on which the large-scale manoeuvres are taking place.
Then there is also, as has been indicated already, the right to keep persons temporarily off such places as a

danger area surrounding a range, or an area which may be considered to be dangerous when new weapons are being tested; quite a transitory need. This Regulation is required mainly to continue the use of these 120 thousand acres while we are concluding the alternative arrangements to buy or to lease or to negotiate training rights in respect of them. In the latter case—the need for training rights—we also endeavour to conclude a hiring agreement with the parties concerned and interested in the land. In the event of large-scale manoeuvres we would need to have access to land of that kind, marginal land, in order to be able to get to an assembly area.
Let me just sketch to the House what would happen if this Regulation were denied to us. We should have to abandon by 10th December the use of the whole of this 120,000 acres. That would result in a chaotic situation, for we would either have to renounce the right to use this land—not to possession of it but the right to use it—with great loss to the efficiency of the Army and the possibilities of training the Army, or else we would have to use Regulation 51 and the Defence Acts in order to enter into full possession of this 120,000 acres. That would have the effect of forcing us to pay more than we need out of public money, and would inconvenience the owner of the land, who is, in most instances, the farmer, with whose interests we are concerned, because we should have to take land which we did not want, stop his farming of it, and enter into possession.
So the continuance of this Regulation is beneficial in three ways. First, it prevents the unnecessary spending of public money by forcing us to abandon those unambitious rights—if I may so term them—in order to take full possession of the land either under purchase or under lease. Second, it protects the individual whom so many hon. Members are concerned to protect—the farmer—because it enables him to go on farming his land virtually without let or hindrance rather than, under Section 51 of the Defence Act, forcing us to take over his land against his will and against ours. Third, and finally, it facilitates training of the Army in the re-armament situation.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Surely, there is another way other than giving up the land or using Regulation 51. Surely, it is to have a negotiation without—if I may use the word—the blackmail of having this power: negotiation with the farmer for training rights over his land.

Mr. Hutchison: That is so, but what would happen? If the farmer unreasonably refused non-damage training rights over his land, and we were fully satisfied we must have them, we should be forced to use Regulation 51 and lease the land. That is the very thing we want to avoid. I do not know, but it would, I think, be convenient now to try to answer the points put so far by hon. Members. No doubt, there will be others later.
The Regulation has been amended, but not materially, and we are really considering the Regulation which the right hon. Gentleman has before him. There were two Amendments made by taking out some lines in paragraph (3) and some in paragraph (4). Words, "as amended by this Regulation," have been revoked or removed at an earlier stage. So nothing material has been altered.
Consultation with agricultural interests is invariably carried out. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is our purpose to protect agriculture. We do not want to take over agricultural responsibility for this land. We merely want to be able to walk over it or to prevent, in some cases, other people walking over it and getting into danger. The right hon. Gentleman asked how many Orders had been made under the Regulation in the last year. I am not sure that I can give him the figures for last year, but there have been five in the last two years, and they applied to low grade, or to high, hilly land used for training purposes.
The hiring agreements, which are really the main purpose of Regulation 52, are for the very purpose of protecting the adequate cultivation of the land while we are on it, so that we do not interfere with cultivation at all. For example, supposing a firing range is held under the Act, and we have certain marginal land known as a danger area around the range—we merely say to the farmer, "Please keep your people off this part of the land on Tuesdays and Fridays

because a stray bullet may come over it." That is the total interference under that head with farming in that particular way under this Regulation.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he hoped that there would be diminishing need for this Regulation, and that since we were not calling up Z reservists for training next year it might be removed or limited. In fact that is not so. There will be at least as many units having to train this year, though not filled up with Z reservists, perhaps, to the same extent; and, indeed, it may be that we shall be more ambitious in large-scale training manoeuvres which may make the need of marginal land and approach land such as I have indicated as necessary or more necessary than before.
As regards restoration of the land when it is handed back by the Service, provision is laid down under the Compensation (Defence) Act which provides that, either the land is restored or compensation is paid for it to the owner. I think there is a point in what the right hon. Gentleman asked about what parallel organisations there are doing the same job and I should like to look into it. I think I have answered the point of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) about protecting agricultural land.
The point was also made by the hon. Member for Maldon. He asked whether this was the Regulation under which highways in his constituency were stopped up by the U.S.A. Air Force. That stoppage was carried out under Section 2 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. Although highways can for a short period be stopped under this Regulation we are discussing, a long-term stoppage of the kind mentioned cannot be.

Mr. Driberg: Would it have been carried out under this Regulation temporarily before an Order was issued under the Supplies and Services Act?

Mr. Hutchison: That might have been so, but this Regulation is intended only for temporary purposes. I appreciate the interest of the people of Wales in this training question. We have given it great thought. In this we have had the help of the Home Secretary. After a stem struggle we have relinquished the training area of Penrhos, which was an important


one. We are alive to the importance of interfering as little as possible in Wales and other parts of the country. My contention is that the Regulation protects the agriculturist, and that if the House did not agree to the Regulation he would be one of the worst hit.

Mr. Harold Davies: In my constituency we have this problem of areas being taken over for shooting practice, or being taken over from time to time by the military authorities. The matter is not quite as simple as the Under-Secretary made out, because the land selected is often near the conurbations and is good agricultural land because of that. Then there is the problem that if land is selected for shooting practice on certain days in hill farming country the farmer cannot let his cattle roam over the territory.
Under the Regulation more power is delegated than by any other of these Regulations, because it says in paragraph (1A):
A Secretary of State or the Admiralty may, to such extent and subject to such restrictions as he or they may think proper, delegate his or their powers under paragraph (1) of this Regulation to any specified persons or class of persons.
That might extend down to a local person who thought himself of some importance in the area. In such a case, could he decide to have a shooting party, the result of which might be that a farmer's beast was killed, or his wife? If that did happen, could the farmer have any redress?
1.30 a.m.
During the General Election the Conservatives promised agriculture a square deal. They said:
The roots of the Conservative Party are deep in Britain's fertile soil. We understand the importance of your job and we are going to make it secure.
I beg the Minister tonight to make it a little more secure still by eliminating this Regulation. I see no need for it at this period. The party opposite produced a wonderful pamphlet at the last General Election entitled "All the Answers on 100 Vital Issues." If hon. Members opposite are in dudgeon about being kept here late tonight, let me remind them that there were 300 or 400 words in that pamphlet on the purpose of Prayers and on the importance of watching delegated legislation. It said:
… it is desirable, if Parliament is to be the people's watchdog, that a reasonable

number should be ventilated in public if only as a constant warning to the Government not to abuse its powers.
I am afraid that with this power of delegation down to the Nth degree, the Government could easily abuse its powers in some rural districts. It goes on to say:
It was for this reason that ten years ago a group of Conservative M.P.s, known as the 'Active Back Benchers,' was formed under the Chairmanship of Sir Herbert Williams, M.P., in order to watch delegated legislation. The present Chairman is Mr. A. T. Lennox-Boyd—
I am sorry that I do not see the right hon. Gentleman here.—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is ill."]

Mr. Ede: A common fate of Ministers of Transport.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry. However, I am glad to see the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) in his place as usual. In the same pamphlet I am told that if I have any problems or questions which I would like answered, I can write to Mrs. Winnie Welcome—[Laughter.] I will tell my hon. and right hon. Friends where she can be found—at the Conservative Central Office.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Would the hon. Member please come to the Amendment before the House?

Mr. Davies: I respect your Ruling, Sir, but I am only illustrating the importance of watching this delegated legislation, and I am informing the House where they can write letters to protect themselves against it. I will take one other point.
Forestry is of vital importance in some areas where we are trying to develop afforestation. I believe that the needs of modern afforestation in Britain and the need for cattle raising and sheep breeding should be balanced against every possible encroachment of our land today, marginal or otherwise. Therefore I see no need for the use of this Regulation. I believe that, with the existing processes, we have no need to fear that our military security would be jeopardised, and that a much more reasonable approach could be made by them than by this delegated legislation which gives far too much power to people over whom this House could have no control whatever.

Mr. Grimond: I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) for drawing our attention to the services of Winnie Welcome; but I cannot help thinking what would be her view on the growth of collective punishment in the House, such as is being visited upon us this evening.
However, I must not pursue that matter, and so far as the Amendment is concerned, I would say that although the speech of the Under-Secretary was reassuring so far as agriculture is concerned, he also made it clear that this Regulation is far wider than the Government requires. The issue, I would suggest, is not whether we should reject or accept it, but whether the Government should not be asked to look at it again with a view to re-drafting it.
Paragraph (1A), for example, gives extremely wide powers, and I should like to know to whom it is the custom to delegate such powers. Although it was indicated by the Under-Secretary that this is of diminishing importance, it will, we understand, be required at least for large scale manœuvres for some considerable time to come; and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has said that so far as the R.A.F. is concerned the need for the use of this Regulation may increase. So, it must be regarded as something which must be continued; and that being the case, it should be put in a more precise and reasonable form.
A lot has been said about consultation with the various interests of the Ministry of Agriculture, and so on; but under this type of Regulation there is often a form of inquiry for the protection of the individual who has a grievance—a sort of quasi-judicial provision—and I would ask the Government to look into the machinery of this which is frequently most unsatisfactory. At the same time, could we be told if there is any machinery for reviewing the orders made under this Regulation? In my own constituency, the Armed Forces hold a considerable amount of land. I do not say that it is held under this Regulation, but it is held, and people come to me asking if I can find out what the rights of the Service Departments are, and what is going to happen to land. Like other hon. Members, one writes and is then told that the matter

has become one for another Department; and an inquiry of that other Department is passed to yet another; and so it goes on.
Would it not be possible to have a regular review of the various orders so as to establish whether a certain piece of land, or a certain building is really required? As the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has stated, there is land where the huts have fallen down, where the barbed wire has become rusty and the whole site has got very unsightly; and yet, the land is still held. Could there not also be some consolidation of the various Regulations under which the Service Departments pursue their rights? I am sure that no hon. Member wants to deny those rights, but I suggest that some measure of consolidation is necessary.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to have on the Front Bench this evening a Minister representing agriculture. It seems strange that on this topic which in the last three quarters of an hour has covered particularly agricultural matters there has been no Minister present to answer the points which have been made.
I well remember when the Labour Government was in office and we were dealing with the matter of land held by Service Departments that hon. Members opposite representing agricultural areas were constantly criticising the Government for just such things as this. Yet tonight I have not heard a single hon. Member from the Conservative Party representing an agricultural constituency who has made a contribution to the debate.

Air Commodore Harvey: Air Commodore Harvey rose—

Mr. de Freitas: Does the hon. and gallant Member represent an agricultural constituency?

Air Commodore Harvey: A mixed constituency with a large rural area.

Mr. de Freitas: I am delighted that one hon. Member of the Conservative Party has taken part in the debate. But no one has come forward and dealt with the major point of the use of agricultural land by Service Departments, and I say "use" because it was the word used by the Under-Secretary. We all know of the figure he quoted of land held at the end


of the war and that it has been reduced to just over 100,000 acres, a very great reduction, but we are still entitled to know about the use the Service Departments make of that land. It might be a small area, and in the case of the Air Force of course it would be a very small area. It is all very well to have arguments from the Service Departments represented here, but it is the specialist Department of Agriculture which should be represented to tell us about this matter.
The Air Force has a very good record in this field of making good agricultural use of the land they hold. The Army may have a good record. My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) spoke about forests on land held by the Army. I should like to know the exact position about afforestation and reafforestation in these areas. My hon. Friend put the point and, although he appears to have left the Chamber, we would like to know the answer. Service Departments do not hold the land to make good agricultural use of it: that is not the purpose—

Dr. Barnett Stross: My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Leek is not in his place. Has he considered the possibility that he has gone to consult Miss Winnie Welcome?

Mr. de Freitas: That may be so. I do not know about Winnie Welcome, but I do know—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we can leave Miss Winnie Welcome alone now.

Mr. de Freitas: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was misled by my hon. Friend. I was rather taken off my argument by the reference to the Conservative Central Office. It is a fact that the Service Departments are there to train and not to indulge in agriculture, although as a sideline they make good use of land. It is right that we should know about it. It is true that they are represented here and they put a good case, but the real burden of the discussion and arguments that hon. Members have advanced has been on agriculture, and it is extremely disappointing that not one Minister for the Department has spoken.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not the hon. Member recall that when he was

Under-Secretary for Air we had continually to chase him to get airfields made use of for agricultural purposes?

Mr. de Freitas: I do not remember any question of having to chase me, but I remember that under the Labour Government, as a result of the part played by my right hon. Friend and the small part played by myself, we made very good use of agricultural land on Air Force stations, as the hon. and gallant Member knows from the agricultural results we had at our annual exhibitions.

Air Commodore Harvey: More could have been done.

Mr. de Freitas: I would like to hear that argument advanced tonight, and not only from the back benches opposite, and the Service Ministers but by the Ministers for Agriculture. After all, we not only have them for England and Wales, but there is a whole horde for Scotland.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: If, by leave of the House, I may speak again, I think that there are only two things I can say further to what I have said already, but they are of fundamental importance. This is not a Regulation under which we possess land. Secondly, this is not a Regulation required for the leasing or purchasing of land. The problem of agriculture only arises in those two cases, leased land and purchased land. Then, of course, the Service Ministries have to make an agreement for grazing rights, and so on, over the land that they have leased.
But this Regulation is in fact a protection for agriculture, because instead of leasing land we say, "No, we only want training rights—non-damage training rights to approach over the land or sometimes to keep other people off while firing is going on."
If the House were to pass this Amendment, and we were to lose this Regulation, they would be doing the greatest possible damage to agriculture. I was impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there is a lot of complicated legislation in existence governing all these factors. There is the Military Manoeuvres Act, the Military Lands


Act and the Defence Acts which interlink and inter-lock in a rather complicated way.
I am afraid that I must ask the House to pass this Regulation, otherwise the situation would be chaotic on 10th December. But I should like to think about whether something can be done in the way of a consolidation Act or a modernisation of the situation. Believe me, we do not want this Regulation for the purpose of taking possession of any land at all. In fact, it does not give us that power. We want it merely so that we have training rights over marginal pieces of land. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Driberg: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, might I ask one question? I was expecting that the Under-Secretary of State for Air would deal with a point which was directly addressed to him and which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) also mentioned. The question was about the wreckage left behind by the Service Departments.

Mr. Hutchison: That situation is dealt with under the Compensation (Defence) Act. I know that sometimes when land is handed back it is restored, but where it is difficult to restore it—because of lack of labour, materials and manpower—compensation is paid instead. I agree that it is more desirable to try to put it back into its pristine beauty.

Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must feel that the only really solid point he has made was that if we did not let him have the Regulation now the situation would be chaotic on 10th December. He has not defended the Regulation. He has said that the Department do their best to make the Regulation more acceptable, but he has not defended it. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's undertaking that he will consider with his colleagues and the Departments some better arrangement.

Mr. Hutchison: I do not want that to go out as a promise from me. I would merely like to examine the possibility. I admit that there are a lot of complicated Acts in existence.

Mr. Brown: Very well. He will only examine the possibility. I give him a warning. If we let him have the Regula-

tion now, despite his most inadequate answer, then if nothing is done he will not get it again.
I wish to make two points. One is about what is done with the land when it is released. It is no use saying that compensation is paid. This is a question of putting the land back not into its pristine condition but into a condition in which it can be made use of. The payment of compensation to a man whose land is left smothered with old rusty iron and all sorts of oddments is not much use. The other thing is that if any further orders are made during the next year, I beg the Under-Secretary to have a close look at the question of consultation with the agricultural Departments. Often we jump this thing without that.
All of us on this side, and quite a few hon. Members on that side, will feel the hon. Member has done his worthy best with the brief provided for him, but it really was not a defence of the Regulation. It is now much too wide, and it is unnecessary. I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I hope he will see that by next year we shall have got rid of the Regulation and put something much more suitable in its place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to move, in line 14, at the end, to insert:
Regulation fifty-five C (Restrictions on registration of new clubs).
The Government are proposing to revoke this Regulation by the general proposals now before us. Some of my hon. Friends may think that this is of not the same importance as the matters that we have been discussing. I hope they will excuse me if I tell them that this is the most important chapter of our discussions tonight. You at least, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will be able to appreciate that, as 29 years ago, when I entered this House, the first Private Member's Bill that was put before us was a Bill brought forward by you on this very subject. Although you are now in an entirely impartial position, I felt I might refer to that, because in all those 29 years in which I have been taking an increased interest in this question of clubs and the treatment of clubs under the law


very little progress has been made, except that which was made by the Regulation that it is now proposed to revoke.
I will state the position briefly. It has been agreed for many years now that there ought to be some radical alteration of the law regarding the way we deal with clubs. The matter was carefully examined by a Royal Commission. They said in para. 495 of their Report:
The club movement at its best, a best which represents a standard to which many clubs of all classes attain, is, in our opinion, a most valuable element in the structure of our society. The expansion of the movement amongst the industrial classes of recent years is, we think, particularly significant. We have wished, therefore, to make no proposals which will tend to hamper that movement.
I entirely agree with that, and what I say will conform with that sentence.
But they go on to say:
We are, however, satisfied that substantial changes in the law are indispensable; and that the law as so altered should be applicable indifferently to the best and to the worst.
For many years after that had been propounded we went on, with the club question getting increasingly more difficult, until the war came. Then the Government of the day decided on Regulation 55 C. It did in a general way what I had wanted to do by another Bill just before the war—a Bill which I submitted to the Royal Commission.
Regulation 55C contained a provision by which new clubs were compelled, for the first time, to give particulars of their membership, their proprietors, those who had a financial interest in founding and running the club, the premises and the antecedents of those proposing to found a new club. Indeed, they had to present to the magistrates the case for a club before permission to register it was allowed. In some senses, therefore, the new club coming under this Regulation for the first time was required to come under the same sort of investigation which the licensee had to undergo when he applied at the brewster sessions for a licence to sell liquor.
The reason why the Regulation was introduced was that, for the first time, everybody agreed that the lack of general club legislation was producing in London, in particular, during war-time, an intolerable scandal. At all the main stations there were touts for disreputable clubs

that existed for no other purpose but to sell "hooch" and the worst sort of liquor, to carry on gambling and to offer temptation of a worse kind. Every station had its representatives waiting for the men coming, say, from the North on their way to the fighting front, or, alternatively, men coming back from the fighting front on leave to their homes, who were exposed to temptations which those clubs in London put in their way.
The police realised that it was a disgrace, and the evidence about the matter was brought to the attention of the Government. For lack of the legislation which had been proposed by the Royal Commission some years earlier, this Regulation had to be made. I think I can say, from what I have heard from the police and others, that it seems to have been almost entirely successful in wiping out in London the worst type of clubs which I have been describing, the clubs, for example, that were described in a debate in the House of Lords some years before the war as places where there were opportunities for prostitutes to meet, for thieves to meet and that people of the worst characters had their own clubs for their particular purposes.
These clubs had spy-holes and barbed wire and organised special warnings as a precaution in case the police came, right up to the time of the Regulation being made. There was then no right for the police, as there was in the case of the public-houses, to inspect these clubs, and the whole thing was a gigantic conspiracy against good order in the community. I do not think that anybody—Conservative, Liberal or Labour—could be found at that time with a good word to say in defence of these institutions.
I submit that, since that Regulation was made, it has been found by the police to be a particularly convenient Regulation under which to carry out what ought to have been carried out by more general legislation dealing with clubs, which should have been enacted at an earlier date. I am putting it to the Home Secretary that if we revoke this Regulation now the Government will be compelled to consider, and ought to give the House an undertaking that they will consider, the introduction of something in the nature of the legislation that the Royal Commission recommended years ago.
2.0 a.m.
To leave the position as it would be if the Regulation were revoked would be to create an intolerable situation. And not only in London, because chief constables in other towns where disreputable clubs came into existence found that this was one of the means by which the community could be protected against such places. It has, for example, been found so in Wales. I will not go into great detail, because some of my hon. Friends from Wales will be able to draw attention to it. But there is strong feeling about the difficulty created by these clubs in regard to Welsh Sunday closing. Every public house in Wales has to close on Sundays, but these clubs are kept open.
I have received the strongest representations—more perhaps from Wales than from England—from representatives of the churches about the weakening effect that will result from allowing this Regulation to go into disuse without any other step being taken. I am trying to be very brief about this matter, although I should have liked an hour for myself to deal with it. The Government have come forward with this proposal for an all-night Sitting—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the Government have imposed it on us, and I am compelled to speak at two o'clock in the morning on an issue which is one of the most important political issues I have ever had to confront. I have shown by my life service to the subject the light in which I regard it. I am now having to compress into a speech lasting ten minutes or so what I wish to say on a subject which I consider the House should regard as one of the most important things with which they have had to deal.
The Conservative Government were least of all justified in doing this thing—

Mr. Bing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The President of the Band of Hope is asleep.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me he is quite mistaken. The president of that institution is a Member of another place.

Mr. Hudson: I was not referring to the President of the Band of Hope. He is a good friend of mine, and I regard

what he does for the Temperance Movement to be genuine and above reproach. I do not participate in these references, and I am quite sure that though his eyes were closed he was listening intently—

Mr. Black: Mr. Black rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest we get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Hudson: The matter was really dealt with by the Conservative Party before the Election when a deputation of the churches led by the Bishop of Rochester put the issue, in which the churches and the Temperance movement were interested, including in particular this question of the clubs. The Bishop began his speech by saying to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who received the deputation in place of the present Prime Minister, that he hoped the Conservative Party might view with favour the aims of the Temperance movement because some of them who wished to give a vote for temperance wanted to feel they could vote Conservative too. He spoke as a Conservative to the Conservative leaders.
What was it the Conservative leaders said about clubs? First, the Bishop had said that the Temperance movement had no quarrel with clubs as such, but they complained of the mere drinking club where, through lack of inspection, the liquor laws could not be administered. Moreover, he said that the closing of redundant public houses could not be carried out in the way the Legislature had intended if clubs were to be substituted.
The Chancellor did not at once reply to that submission, but before the deputation left the leader of the Methodist Church said there was the issue of the clubs to be replied to, and the Chancellor agreed that there were the perfectly legitimate clubs, and there was also the problem presented to Parliament by the clubs organised for purely drinking purposes. These, he said, were socially undesirable, and he promised to consider this matter further with his colleagues.
Well, we have the result of the consideration, and the suspension of this Regulation is proposed. I am willing to admit that my own party as well as the party opposite have very many people associated with them, and many of the best people, who are fearful that further


legislation may mean the suppression of perfectly genuine institutions. I am sure that they are wrong.
No one who is really genuinely concerned with temperance has ever wanted to suppress the majority of the clubs in the country. What has been the evil all along has been the sort of disreputable institution that came to the surface during war-time. What has been wrong is that we have not had the means until now of dealing with that sort of place.

Sir Herbert Wiliams: Were any of those clubs shut under this Regulation?

Mr. Hudson: Yes.

Sir H. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Regulation he will see that is not so.

Mr. Hudson: What I should say is that they were prevented from opening. The Regulation was designed to prevent new clubs coming into being. It gave the right to the police to insist on particulars, and for the first time they were in a position to go to the magistrates and prevent clubs being registered. It is that fact which makes people in Wales, in view of their particular problem, so anxious to retain this Regulation.
I will say no more, except to put it to the Home Secretary that there is a better case for re-considering this matter than any other which has been brought before him. The Government, through the Chancellor's statement, were committed to act with special care on this question, yet they scrap this Regulation without suggesting any other provision to do the work suggested by the Royal Commission nearly 20 years ago. I submit that the Home Secretary ought to be willing to accept this Amendment and to keep this Regulation.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to second the Amendment.
You will be very happy to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I do not intend to detain the House for very long. I do not altogether share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) I am a middle-of-the-roader; somewhere midway between my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville). On this

issue, however, my hon. Friend has made a very effective case, and I am sure the Home Secretary will tell us that he has made a mistake about this matter.
A few days ago I received a communication from my constituency to this effect:
This Association views with very grave concern the Government's proposal not to renew Regulation 55C applicable to Clubs …
My Association is of the opinion that no legitimate Club, well run, would suffer in any way from the continuance of this regulation which the police have repeatedly stated has proved of material assistance to them in preventing the establishment of bogus and discreditable Clubs, against which the regulation was aimed.
As you are aware, competition from Clubs today is very severe and they enjoy many amenities and privileges which are forbidden to licensed houses and for this reason we do ask you to give protection from the bogus variety of Club, the growth of which would be encouraged by the withdrawal of this regulation.
To me this is merely a letter from the Sunderland and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, but to the Home Secretary it is an instruction. That is why I am fully satisfied that now I have called his attention to the view of that Association—a view which is shared, I understand, by licensed victuallers' associations throughout the country—he will at once admit his error and tell the House that it was a mistake he made which has led to the Regulation not being included.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think it would be convenient if, at this point, I indicated the considerations which have brought me to this conclusion so that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will have them in mind. If other points arise I shall, if the House gives me leave, be very pleased to deal with them.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said enough in a humorous way to show that this is a difficult decision if one were to look at it merely from the political point of view—[Laughter.]—if one were to do that. I hope to show that I have not done so, and the House can form its own view when I have finished. I have often been criticised, with all that sincerity and charm which we all genuinely like, even if we disagree with him, by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J.


Hudson). But to be criticised almost simultaneously by the hon. Member for Ealing, North and the Licensed Victuallers' Association is a new experience, even for me.
2.15 a.m.
Therefore, I want the House to consider what the position is. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North indicated, that at the present time there is no power under the Licensing Act, apart from this Regulation, to object to a club on registration. There are powers contained in that Act to strike off the club. This Regulation, as the hon. Gentleman said, enables the police to object to the registration of a new club and, if they do so, the club cannot be registered. It may appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction, and it is only if the court is satisfied that the objection is unreasonable, but not otherwise, that it can authorise the registration of the club.
I think that hon. Gentlemen ought to look at the grounds on which the police objection can be made, because one of them is
that, having regard to existing facilities for social amenities, recreation and refreshment or for cultural or political activities and to the objects of the club, the club is not required to meet a genuine and substantial need.
It is quite true that it goes on to other grounds, as the hon. Gentleman told us, that is, grounds of inaccurate particulars or the bad character of the applicants.
But I do ask the House to consider that first ground, because we have to face the position that that means that the police can form the view as to whether a club—be it recreational or be it political, the police have to form the view—is needed or whether there are sufficient clubs, either political or recreational, in the district. If the police form that view, then it is for those who wish to form the club to satisfy the local bench that that view is unreasonable. Only if they can satisfy the bench that it is unreasonable can they form the club.

Mr. J. Hudson: Would it not also be true to say that it is precisely that sort of thing that the police are expected to do at brewster sessions and in respect to the issue of a new licence? In fact the police are quite accustomed in a

moderate way to build up objections exactly on that issue, that a club is not required or a "pub" is not required to meet a genuine and substantial need. Why, then, should that not go on?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly answer the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, with regard to public houses, in my experience that evidence is never limited to the police. The objections in the case of a public house usually come from the temperance societies with which the hon. Gentleman is associated, and evidence is given of the need for the public house from the people who live in the neighbourhood. But here the police have the power of preventing another political club coming into existence unless the people who want to form that club can satisfy the local magistrates that the police case is unreasonable. I do say that that is a position which it is very difficult to justify in peace-time.
During the war we had to consider the points which the hon. Gentleman fairly stressed as a war-time need—people coming on leave after being in the line, and so on, and being susceptible to the sort of temptation he described.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, before he leaves that point, inform the House whether he has any statistics to show in how many cases the police have objected to a club on social, cultural, or political grounds and the objection was over-ruled by a local court of summary jurisdiction?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have not the statistics, but when I was considering this matter I saw representatives of a number of organisations—of the Working Men's Clubs and Institutes, the union with which I am sure my colleagues in the House are connected or know about: the Association of Conservative Clubs, with which I have been connected in my political capacity: and the National Golf Clubs Protection Association. They pressed strongly for revocation of the Regulation, which they regarded as unwarrantable interference with the rights of ordinary citizens. They assured me that the bogus clubs are in a small minority, and represented that they could be struck off. They stressed strongly that they did not represent an evil on a sufficient scale to justify restrictions on the registration of genuine clubs.
On the other side I considered many representations made to me in the sense which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I also had conveyed to me, as they were to the hon. Member for Ealing, North the views of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. I say frankly to the House that it is a difficult problem.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure I am speaking for all my colleagues from Wales when I say that we have had strong representations and that there is a deep feeling in Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in addition to being Home Secretary, is Minister for Welsh Affairs. Has he taken the opportunity of consulting the Council for Wales and seeking representative Welsh opinion on this matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward a strong case from the point of view of the delegations, and arguing that it would be a great hardship on the applicants to re-enact, or continue, this Regulation: but in arguing in that way surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is overlooking the provision in paragraph (3) which gives the applicants right of appeal to the courts.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can have heard what I said, because I stressed several times that objection could be made by the police, and that it was then for an applicant, and those trying to found a club, to go to the magistrates' court. They could only succeed in that court if they showed, the onus being on them, that the objection was unreasonable. I think the House will bear me out that I mentioned that point twice, and I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member missed it.
With regard to the other point, I have had representations and I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight, but the issue before us is not whether we think that the law with regard to clubs ought to be strengthened and changed. The issue is whether we think it is right to keep this war-time Regulation indefinitely and whether that provision which I put to the House is an excessive infringement of liberty. I ask hon. Members to put themselves in my position

and weigh up the different points. However, I want to assure the House that I think the law with regard to clubs will have to be considered, and in my view it could be improved. I have already entered into discussions. I do not want to go into them in detail and I hope the House will not press me, because discussions are so much better if they are kept between the parties to the discussions and not reproduced by one of the parties in the House.

Mr. Bing: Brewers.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If I may put it colloquially, I have had my leg pulled on this before and it is a good opportunity for pulling it. As I said before the hon. and learned Gentleman came in, to be criticised within 10 minutes by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and, through the mouth of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), by the Licensed Victuallers' Association, is a new experience even for me. So I already have an open flank in that respect and I am prepared to "take it."

Mr. Hudson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting anything derogatory about me? I was speaking for a body of men who have every right to consider that the bad clubs in the form they have been are in unfair competition with them. Surely I have the right to receive their representations and, if they think I am a better voice than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, why should they not support me rather than him?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad to find, such is the infinite variety of human nature, that even this combination can take place. Before the hon. Gentleman made his point, I said that I believed the law required further consideration and could be improved. I have not only formed that belief but I have initiated discussions with a view to seeing what would be a via media which would have some chance of acceptance. I do not want to go into the conversations I have had with the representatives of the clubs because I do not think that would be helpful, but I should like the House to know that these conversations have taken place.
2.30 a.m.
May I ask that the question be approached in this way? Will hon. Members, if I may be colloquial again, take their pet view and think about what is the minimum they would accept? It seems to me eminently reasonable that there should be some provision for discovering the previous character and activities of people who make an application. That seems to be a most reasonable line, and it would help to prevent the professional bogus club creator. This type of person may exist in only a small way, but a limited number do exist in London, as we have found out.
The provisions could be useful in the case of people running clubs who have already got themselves into trouble. That is the sort of line on which I should like to make my approach; and I ask those on both sides of this argument to see if we could not approach the matter with a view to getting some agreement in the future.
But, today, I must put the issue as it appears to me. Legislation is not practicable for the time being. It will need a lot of education on both sides before we have a chance to bring anything into being, and so the Government's choice was either to allow this Regulation to lapse, or to continue it for a possibly long period with the resultant infringement of liberty. I assure hon. Members that I have given very careful thought to the subject; but, on balance, I have come to the conclusion that that infringement, satisfactory though it was in time of war, is too great in time of peace. Therefore, I decided to revoke the Regulation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Speaking as an hon. Member from Wales, I am a little disturbed by the decision of the Government to revoke this Regulation. I listened with great care to the speech of the Home Secretary, and I must say that I am completely unconvinced by his explanation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had two major arguments. First, that this is a war-time Regulation, and the second was that it gives too much power to the police. As one practising in the courts, my experience has been that the police have been extremely impartial in their operation of

this Regulation; by and large, they have been above reproach in this matter. Furthermore, it is important not to forget that it is the magistrates who ultimately have to decide between the two parties and decide as to whether the grounds are adequate or not. The ultimate responsibility rests with the bench, and not with the police.
On the argument that this is a war-time Regulation, I cannot see that there is any substance in such a point. That it is a war-time decision is not an argument against it if it is operating successfully in time of peace. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Hudson), who said that it is operating successfully now. But my main case against the Home Secretary is that he has spoken as such; he should remember that he is also the Minister responsible for Welsh Affairs, and in that capacity he should direct his mind to the Welsh position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that the Welsh people have a particular interest in this subject, and the very existence of clubs in Wales which are able to open on Sundays, militates completely against the Welsh Sunday Closing Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that. The feeling in Wales today is that the revocation of this Regulation, which does control the indiscriminate opening of clubs for the purpose of drinking, will only lead to the opening of still more clubs in Wales.
I agree that what is needed is fresh legislation to deal with this subject, but, until the Government are ready to introduce that fresh legislation, it is their duty to leave this Regulation as it stands. I can tell the Home Secretary that when Wales reads what he has said here Wales will be dissatisfied. He has promised to use his powers of persuasion to emphasise the needs and viewpoint of Wales to the Government and the House. As Minister for Welsh Affairs, he must use his powers of persuasion against himself as Home Secretary, and that would be an interesting experiment. I do ask him to reconsider this matter. My feeling is that we should press it to a Division.

Mr. Peter Remnant: This is an occasion when I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), and for that


reason, if for no other, I would regret the departure of Regulation 55c. During the past two years I have pressed the Home Secretary of the time to enact permanent legislation to take the place of Regulation 55c, where it is desirable to make it permanent. Not only my right hon. and learned Friend last year but the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) the year before expressed regret that it would not be possible to do that.
I think we should emphasise that it is not the genuine club of which we are being critical but, as the hon. Member rightly said, the bogus club. I was glad to hear the Home Secretary say that he was considering permanent legislation, and in that respect I want to call attention to three items and ask him to consider them.
The first is that the man intending to apply for the licence of licensed premises takes no exception whatever to having his history scrutinised by the licensing justices and those who advise them. When he has become the holder of a licence he takes no exception to the premises also being closely watched and scrutinised. I feel equally that the owners or managers of clubs should also have no objection to some controlling authority, particularly as they are dealing in alcoholic liquors. But I am far from convinced that the duty of deciding whether the promoters are suitable should rest on the shoulders of the police, although I agree that whoever is the controlling authority should have available to them information and advice from the police, as indeed the licensing justices do.
I take second place to no hon. Member in my regret at the increase in the figures of drunkenness and the increase in road accidents, fatal or non-fatal. But it is not safe to assume that the liquors obtained by those driving vehicles whilst under the influence of drink are necessarily obtained in licensed premises. There are many other places in which they can be obtained.
One must remember that under the law as it stands clubs are not so subject to supervision as are licensed premises, and neither, if a man has too much liquor in the club, does the club suffer in anything like the same way as the holder of the licence of licensed premises.

Mr. W. Nally: The hon. Gentleman has in his constituency Conservative clubs. Is he suggesting that the supervision of Conservative clubs in his constituency is less than the supervision exercised over licensed premises?

Mr. Remnant: If the hon. Member refers to the police, he will be told that they have not the same powers of supervision over clubs as they have over licensed premises. That statement is correct in fact. It merely adds to my argument that it increases the necessity of having a controlling authority over the opening and the operation and conduct of clubs of any sort. Those good and genuine clubs of which most of us are members have nothing to fear.
I will not be drawn into saying what that controlling authority should be. It would take too long to discuss the two sides of the matter. I press my right hon. and learned Friend to speed up his consultations because some permanent legislation on this subject is urgently required, especially if this Regulation is to go.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have given us a fair account of the consideration he has given to this matter. I must say that it differs somewhat from the story he told us last year, when he indicated that this Regulation was of use to his Department and those who are associated with it. He said:
The difficulty which has been found is the difficulty of getting evidence on those points.
That is with regard to the undesirable club.
That was why the mode of approach that prevention, in certain cases, is better than cure was taken in the Regulation. The way it is done is that it requires particulars to be given of the persons concerned in promoting a new club for which registration is sought, and then enables the police to object on the grounds of redundancy or inaccurate particulars or—I quote this provision rather more extensively because of its importance:
'… that the character or antecedents of any of those responsible for the club are such that the club ought not to be registered.'
Later he said:
I am informed that the Regulation is very useful in preventing the formation of bogus and undesirable clubs and it has the advantage from the personal point of view of the Home Secretary, whoever he happens to be, that it has the effect of achieving a saving in police


manpower which would otherwise be occupied in collecting the evidence on the somewhat difficult points which I have mentioned and by the difficult methods which would be required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 1112.]
I cannot think that, although there has been a gratifying increase in the police forces of the country since the implementation of the salary award given by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, the state of the preservation of the Queen's Peace is such that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to see the police unnecessarily employed when he has some method by which he can save manpower.
2.45 a.m.
I listened with great interest, because this was a problem that confronted me the whole six years I occupied the office the right hon. and learned Gentleman now adorns. This is a matter of great concern to all those who are appalled at the increasing statistics of drunkenness in this country—and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) nods his agreement. I am quite certain that we should find some of the reasons for this increase when we are dealing with the bogus club and the unsatisfactory club.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is giving consideration to the matter. I should have thought it would have been possible to continue this Regulation, amended if possible—I amended it three times while I was at the Home Office—gradually eliminating the more objectionable features. I have no doubt that the very point seized upon tonight by the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have been dealt with by an Amendment—the fact that one puts the police in the position of objecting and leaving the matter with them unless the proprietor of the club appeals.
I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This evening we are apparently agreed that none of us wants to see the establishment of bogus clubs made easy. If he would agree to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, begin conversations with Members of this House and such other people as he liked to bring in with a view to getting a Regulation that was satisfactory, and continue that Regulation in force until he was in a position to introduce legislation, I should have thought he would not merely

be carrying out the spirit of the speech he made last year and the underlying implications of the speech he made tonight, but he would probably considerably hasten agreement among the various interests that he would have to consult with regard to permanent legislation.
Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I feel on these matters that I am between my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. James Hudson) and the hon. Member for Wokingham, because frankly I prefer the club to the pub, particularly when I go into a club and am provided with refreshment of the kind that my principles allow me to take. I have never found much difficulty in getting that. Speaking as one who has been connected with clubs associated with the Club and Institute Union for more than 50 years, I say that it would be in the interests of the clubs themselves that there should be an amendment of the law that would enable people not associated with the clubs to view them with greater confidence than they sometimes do now.
It would also—and as a supporter of the clubs I regard this as a very important matter—relieve the publicans of the self-imposed duty of keeping watch on the clubs to make complaints against them. In my experience, generally when there has been a prosecution of a club it has been on evidence that was pushed towards the police by the local licensed victuallers who objected to what was happening in the clubs.
On this side of the House, in view of the speech made last year and that made tonight by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we feel exceedingly disappointed that he has not been able to continue the Regulation, amended, if necessary, to remove some of the points that he raised.
I do not like to see the Police State, even in a matter like this, but I am quite certain that that could be remedied, and, at the same time, the institution of bogus clubs could be prevented. I sincerely hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have second thoughts about this; otherwise I feel that I should have to ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House on this Amendment, and I should hope, in that event, to have the support of the hon. Member for Wokingham, the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) and those


others who, generally speaking, seem to be well-informed on the views of the licensed trade.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the House will allow me, I rise to answer the point that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, because I feel it is only courteous to do so at once.
I have considered this matter, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is no longer possible to amend according to our heart's desire. The only Amendment I can make is just what the right hon. Gentleman himself could make—to strike out parts of the Regulation. If it had been possible to omit the part to which I have drawn attention as being objectionable to me—that is, the first part of the grounds—and if it had also been possible to change the procedure which, as I have told the House, offends me in a peacetime Regulation, namely, the procedure by which the objection is made, and it is then for the person against whom the objection is made to displace that objection, to prove that it is unreasonable, and only if he does supplant the objection is he then allowed to start a club, that would have been the approach.
After considering it, and especially after having heard the views held on both sides of the House, I cannot honestly say to this House or to myself that there is a probability of legislation in any reasonable time in the future. Where there is no prospect of reasonably proximate legislation, then I think the balance comes round in favour of maintaining freedom, although I recognise the difficulties.
Therefore, I am sorry, because this is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else is trying to approach on the lines which they think are right, but I must say that, having considered the matter and the varying claims and difficulties, as well as the appeals made to me, I still feel that when we find war-time procedure being prolonged into peace, and likely to be prolonged without any reasonably proximate chance of the position being changed by permanent legislation, it is right to drop it.
I am sorry to introduce this discordant note into what has been a particularly happy discussion of all the various matters, but I feel bound to stand by what seems right to me, and I am sorry

that I cannot meet the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. C. Hughes: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he deal with the special position of Wales?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have considered that. It was a strong reason which I took into account. But I think that the problem of the bogus clubs has been made too prominent. Against that there is the right of Welshmen, as of Englishmen, to form themselves into political or other clubs as they wish, which is an important one and which should be borne in mind.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Snow: I have been sitting during the whole of this debate and, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I wish to speak.
It seems to me that the Home Secretary has made a substantial case for accepting this proposition. I want to make that point because opinion on this side of the House is not uniform. In the vast new housing estates which have sprung up since the war round our provincial cities there are not sufficient public houses, and clubs are a perfectly justifiable thing to encourage. If they are to wait upon the public houses it is an imposition on the community, and clubs in that case might be inhibited by the re-introduction of this Regulation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The second explanation put forward by the Home Secretary in support of the revocation of this Regulation is, to my mind, just as lame as the first. On other occasions when this matter has been discussed it has been the accepted view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that, pending permanent legislation, this Regulation is serving a most useful purpose.
When the Home Secretary says there is no prospect of permanent legislation in the near future, I am willing to accept it. But that is an additional argument for the continuance of this Regulation, a continuance strongly supported by the National Consultative Council for the Retail Liquor Trade, and the Licensed Victuallers Central Protection Society of London, which is a larger organisation


than the licensed victuallers association in my native town of Sunderland to which reference has been made.
The Home Secretary said that he had had negotiations with the various club movements and organisations. He did not tell the House that there have also been negotiations with the National Consultative Council on this very subject. Why he should mention that he has had consultations with the clubs and not that he has had consultations with the Council, I am unable to understand.
Another argument in favour of the continuance of this Regulation is the necessity for economising in manpower, particularly in the Police Force. The revocation of this Regulation, so far as London is concerned, and especially during Coronation Year, will place an additional burden upon the police which they are unable to discharge with satisfaction. If at the present moment the Home Secretary has 500 summonses for unlicensed trading in Trafalgar Square which have not yet been disposed of, I suggest that in revoking this Regulation he is adding a further and unnecessary burden on the police.
For these reasons, I hope that some hon Members opposite will realise the weakness of the position taken up by the Home Secretary and will record by their Votes their opinion that this Regulation should be continued.

3.0 a.m.

Dr. Stross: I can possibly help the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision. When he quoted paragraph (4, a), he specifically mentioned that he did not want to give to the police

the power to say "yea" or "nay" to a political organisation forming itself as a club, and he told us that he wished to protect the freedom of the citizen. Will he take it from me that in places like North Staffordshire, where Conservative policy is not very successful, there are a number of Conservative clubs and no Labour political clubs. If there were no Conservative clubs in North Staffordshire the Conservative Party would do just as well, and probably better, than it does now. We refuse to have Labour clubs which are drinking clubs. However good it starts out, ultimately, drink is the ruin of the club. I ought not to say this because it may be used against me and the Labour Party by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is a fact that politics and drink do not go well together.

If this Regulation is removed the Home Secretary is doing the very sort of thing he is the last person to do. He is giving encouragement to the worst type of club where young and susceptible people can be taken to drink bad liquor. I am not an abstainer, and I can appreciate good wine and ale as much as anyone, but history has shown that bad drink can be utterly destructive of morals and heads. Here the Home Secretary is giving encouragement to means of fostering crime, because crime is associated with the drinking of poisonous material of this kind. I urge him not to force us to defeat him in the Lobby on this issue.

Question put: "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 243.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[3.5 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Adams, Richard
Callaghan, L. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Albu, A. H.
Champion, A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Chapman, W. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Awbery, S. S.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Balfour, A.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Benn, Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Benson, G.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Beswick, F.
Daines, P.
Ewart, R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fernyhough, E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Field, W. J.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Fienburgh, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Finch, H. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Follick, M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Foot, M. M.


Bowden, H. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Freeman, John (Watford)


Brockway, A. F.
Deer, G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.
Gibson, C. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.
Gooch, E. G.




Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Sylvester, G. O.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hargreaves, A.
Morley, R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.
Usborne, H. C.


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wallace, H. W.


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.
Wigg, George


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willey, F. T.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Kenyon, C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Yates, V. F.


King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J.



Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Royle and Mr. Hannan




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimond, J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cole, Norman
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Colegate, W. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Baldwin, A. E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Banks, Col. C.
Crouch, R. F.
Heath, Edward


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Baxter, A. B.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hollis, M. C.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Donner, P. W.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Holt, A. F.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Birch, Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Drewe, C.
Horobin, I. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bossom, A. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fell, A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Braine, B. R.
Finlay, Graeme
Hurd, A. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fort, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Foster, John
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bullard, D. G.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kaberry, D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Burden, F. F. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Campbell, Sir David
Godber, J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Carson, Hon. E.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lindsay, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, H. N.







Llewellyn, D. T.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Snadden, W. McN.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Soames, Capt. C.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Nutting, Anthony
Spearman, A. C. M.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.


Longden, Gilbert
Odey, G. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Low, A. R. W.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stevens, G. P.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Storey, S.


McAdden, S. J.
Osborne, C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McCallum, Major D.
Partridge, E.
Studholme, H. G.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Summers, G. S.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Teeling, W.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pitman, I. J.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tilney, John


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Profumo, J. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Raikes, H. V.
Turton, R. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Marples, A. E.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Robertson, Sir David
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maudling, R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Roper, Sir Harold
Watkinson, H. A.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Mellor, Sir John
Russell, R. S.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Molson, A. H. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nicholls, Harmar
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Shepherd, William



Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Wills.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to move, to leave out line 17.
I do not want it to be thought that this is not a matter of great seriousness, and something to which the House ought not to pay a great deal of attention. The fact that the most serious consideration before us is cloaked by a very bad Regulation is all the more reason why the House should consider exactly what this Regulation is failing to do. There can be no conclusion about it at all.
The intention behind the Regulation is to provide for safety in the handling of ammunition and explosives and inflammable materials. The safety, I am presuming here, is the safety of the people who are concerned with those operations, or who are living in the harbours or near the harbours where those operations take place. They are the people of the shore, in the armaments factories; they are Admiralty employees; they are the contractors' men who may be engaged in those operations.
3.15 a.m.
It is proper that the Ministry of Transport should take unto itself responsibility for saying that their safety is paramount when loading and unloading is taking

place; but if the Minister accepts that responsibility, why does he bring before the House again a Regulation which is obscurely drafted? As it stands, this Regulation is putting people in jeopardy. The Regulation has been brought before the House on many occasions, and has been amended once or twice; but it has never been used, so far as I can find out. I doubt whether the Minister can tell us of any occasion when it has been used. Paragraph (2) is of extreme importance. It says:
Nothing in any restriction imposed by or under any Act in relation to the area of any harbour authority or canal or inland navigation undertakers in the United Kingdom shall apply—(a) to the shipping, unshipping, handling, storage or conveyance in the service of Her Majesty or under instructions given on behalf of Her Majesty of ammunition, explosives, or inflammable substances.
What is the meaning of that? A proper interpretation of this paragraph removes from the responsible person, the harbour matter or port officials who are empowered to ensure that safety regulations are carried out in the harbour, the authority which should be theirs. They are men who have been chosen to do the job because they are experts. They have been given control because it is necessary


to have men who are deeply experienced in this work of seeing that ships are not blown up.
Put shortly, the position is that if someone acting for Her Majesty gives instructions for the loading of a ship, the harbour master is not empowered to interfere to see that safety regulations are carried out. Think of the situation. A contractor is employed to load an ammunition barge. He gets instructions from a Service Minister. That contractor is told what to do by the Service Department, and is told that he may take no notice under the Regulations of the harbour master or the regulations established for the dock or harbour. That is dangerous. Ammunition barges do blow up. There have been bad explosions.
On 14th July, 1950, nine barges blew up at Portsmouth. Considerable damage was done in Portsmouth, Fareham and Gosport. One barge caught fire and its load of shells blew up. All the other barges blew up in turn. Windows were smashed. An ammunition factory was destroyed. Around the harbour almost every house was damaged. Great loss of life was only avoided by the heroism of the workers in the operation. Trained men were doing that job. They were men employed by the Admiralty. Think what might have happened had inexperienced men been doing the work. The holocaust might have been quite frightful.
I do not see a representative of the Ministry of Transport on the Front Bench. Perhaps they do not regard the safety of the people as being of such importance as the destruction of the nationalised transport industry. However, I hope that whoever replies to this debate will deal with the following important point. What happens if visiting forces to this country decide that they will unload or load their ships with ammunition, explosives and inflammable materials in exactly the way they want to do it? Under this Regulation there is nothing anybody can do about it. A visiting force which, because of temperamental or geographical reasons, may have entirely different safety regulations from ours, may be engaged in a most hazardous operation in our harbours without the harbour masters or the port authorities having any control over them.
We have a Visiting Forces Act which has affected 23 of our statutes in one

way or another, but apparently nobody in the Ministry of Transport bothered, while that legislation was going through, to check against this Regulation. I submit that the reason is that everybody had forgotten about it; they were so busy seeing to it that our liberties here were being checked in another direction.
The Regulation has a queer reference to seaplanes in paragraph 3:
Any reference in this regulation to shipping or to unshipping shall be construed as including a reference to putting on board of seaplanes or to unloading from seaplanes, as the case may be.
Who is using seaplanes? What branch of the Service is using them today for the conveyance of ammunition, explosives and inflammable materials? I am advised that not one of the Service Departments is using seaplanes, and still this archaic reference stays in the Regulation, though there is no reference to helicopters.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) urged upon the Government a few days ago in this House the importance of investigating and encouraging the use of helicopters. I am sure that the hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench who are interested in aviation and have progressive minds will agree that we are on the eve of the large-scale use of helicopters in this country. Although I am not an expert, I could make a claim that I think is unique in this House, that I am one of the few men who have ever piloted a helicopter over the White House in Washington. I did it under circumstances that terrified me, and would have terrified the occupant of the White House had he known what I was doing. From the limited experience I had on that occasion I was convinced that the helicopter is an instrument for the conveyance of freight as well as of passengers that must not be ignored.
It is too bad that this Government, which professes to be progressive in these things, asks us to agree to a Regulation which talks about seaplanes which nobody is using and ignores helicopters which are to be the means of conveyance for the future. This will not do, for what may happen under this is that the helicopters will come along and the Minister of Transport will find that he has no control over their loading and unloading.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Might I ask my hon. Friend a question which I have been putting in vain to hon. Members opposite? What is the cost of a helicopter?

Sir L. Plummer: I do not know, but I will undertake to ask the hon. Member for Abingdon, who knows these things, and to inform my hon. Friend.
Anybody who has studied the transport systems of the world will have realised that the time is not far distant when we shall have air take-offs at the side of harbours, and unless this regulation is looked at seriously there is not even going to be control for aeroplanes.
We are asked to look at this Regulation and support it when what we really want is permanent legislation to safeguard the lives of those loading and unloading ships, or working in the docks, or living around the harbours. I agree that the Government intend to safeguard those people, but this Regulation is so ill-thought out that the safety of these people is endangered by its very continuance. Therefore, I move the Amendment in the belief that it will at least induce the Government to look at this again and come forward, one hopes, with legislation which is intelligent.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I have to admit that I find some difficulty in seconding the Amendment, because I see that the first line of the Regulation states;
The Minister of Transport may by order make such provision. …
I approach the representative of the Ministry of Transport in the House to say that I intended to raise this point, but the Minister to whom I have given notice is not in the House. I make no great point of that fact, although it will mean that I must now go into this subject at greater length than otherwise would have been necessary.
This Regulation deals with safety precautions for ammunition being shipped or unshipped in harbour; and I should here say that I have a constituency interest in representing part of Bristol. One sees that the Minister shall make any orders to provide safety arrangements, and he has the power to—
abrogate or modify any restriction imposed by or under any Act …

in order to make his Regulations more effective. On reading the paragraph, one finds that the Minister of Transport has such power. But, since 1939, no orders have been made under this provision. One would have thought that the Government would have discovered that under Regulation 2BA, the Secretary of State may make orders as to any explosive, and impose prohibitions or restrictions as are thought necessary. That is to say, there is no need for Defence Regulation 76 since, under 2BA, there is already power to make such provisions.
Leaving aside whether any orders have been made in recent years, and leaving aside the fact that an earlier Regulation covers the subject, one finds that atomic energy is completely excluded from this Regulation. The hands of the Government are somewhat tied because all that can be done this morning is that something be left out. We cannot put anything in, and I cannot ask any hon. Member opposite to include anything about atomic energy. But, reading about the explosion at the Monte Bello Islands, and remembering that one of the objects was to see the effect of an atomic explosion in a port or harbour, one has to accept that there is a danger to this country which is so dependent on sea trade. An enemy might bring in an atomic bomb to a port or harbour. We must be prepared against atomic weapons being used, and we must assume that such weapons may be shipped or unshipped by us in our own harbours. Those are the comments I make on paragraph (1). No orders have ever been made. From my reading, Regulation 2BA gives the Government all the power they need, and surely it is time that someone thought a little about atomic energy.
3.30 a.m.
Paragraph (2) says that no restriction of any kind under any Act of Parliament applies to Her Majesty's Government when moving ammunition or to any movement of ammunition for the purposes of defence. That means that the vast majority of the movement of ammunition is excluded from the Regulation. I looked to see whether any ammunition had been moved other than by Her Majesty's Government or for the purposes of defence, and, although I have combed the Annual Abstract of Statistics from 1939 to the present day, I could


find no mention anywhere of any ammunition or explosives being moved except by the Government or for the purposes of defence. I may be open to correction because small amounts may have been moved and it was not thought worthwhile to mention them in the Annual Abstract of Statistics, but it can represent no great trade in this country. Paragraph (2) excludes any ammunition moved in or out of this country in the last 13 years.
What about visiting forces? Obviously, the United States Government have ammunition, including atomic weapons. It is widely understood that the Americans have atomic weapons in this country, and they are excluded because that is for the purposes of defence. They are totally excluded from the Regulation. I make a narrow point here that we have to be responsible for the safety of people in our ports and harbours and in the areas around the ports and harbours. They could be blown up by ammunition whether it was N.A.T.O. ammunition, Belgian, British or American ammunition. It is really quite improper for a Government to throw away all responsibility for ammunition because it is made in the U.S.A. instead of in this country. If the Government have the interests of the safe handling of ammunition at heart, they should make arrangements for seeing that that ammunition is safely handled.
Under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act, which deals with visiting motor cars, be they American forces vehicles or not, the Minister of Transport retains the right to lay down Regulations affecting the movement of vehicles on the road. I am not sure whether he intends to exercise those rights, but in that case the danger to people in this country is that perhaps a woman and a child may be knocked down and a couple of deaths may be caused. That is a danger to this country but, compared with the danger of an explosion in a port or harbour, it is very small. If the Government think it worthwhile to retain some power of supervision over movement of motor vehicles in this country, they ought to retain power over the movement of ammunition.
On the question of the exclusion of Her Majesty's Government from the provisions of the Regulation, I think it not improper to ask the representative of the

Admiralty or the War Office whether we can be told anything about the standards of safety of the Navy and the Army in these matters. The Navy, Army and Air Force plead complete exemption from the Regulation and I would be interested to know whether there is any agreement between the Service Departments and the Ministry of Transport about what are regarded as necessary safety Regulations. There is no private trade in ammunition, and on the visiting forces question we are left completely in the air. No doubt the Service safety regulations are very stringent, but I should like to hear a little more about them.
I come to a point of which I gave the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport notice. As I understand it, this Regulation totally invalidates the latest merchant shipping rules published on 13th November, which came into effect a week ago. I am by no means a lawyer, but I understand that I am on what is known as a good point here. This rule, published under the Merchant Shipping Act, purport to lay down very strict rules for the handling of dangerous goods, including explosives.
On page 2 of the rules one notices that under the paragraph headed, "Marking" it is said that it is unlawful for dangerous goods to be taken on board a ship unless clearly marked. Later it is said that if the master of a ship suspects that these rules have not been complied with he is entitled to refuse to receive the explosives on the ship.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. It is clear that we can only raise matters for which there is Ministerial responsibility. I take it that that means that there should be a Minister to reply. As the Ministry of Transport has been mentioned, may we ask which of the Ministers on the Front Bench will reply?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know whether that is a point of order, but I am anxious to meet it. There are three Ministries concerned with this Regulation—the Home Department, as explosives authority; the Ministry of Supply, represented by the Parliamentary Secretary, who own a great part of the explosives; and the Ministry of Transport who deal with the harbour authorities, and so on. The Minister of Transport makes the order for us. I am sorry that we are not


all represented, but two of us are here and I do not think that that is bad.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree.

Mr. Ede: It might have been a welcome change to see the Minister of Transport replying for the Home Office instead of the Home Secretary replying for the Minister of Transport.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I had a moment of apprehension. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to say that it would be a welcome change to see anyone but myself.

Mr. Benn: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that I am not making what is becoming an accustomed complaint about the Minister not being in his place. I gave previous notice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport because he is responsible for these rules which were published a week ago. According to the Explanatory Note, the rules are circulated because they appear to the Minister of Transport to implement the provisions of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.
There are very strict safety rules, so strict that the master of a ship is entitled to refuse to receive explosives if he is not satisfied that the provisions of the Regulation have been fully carried out. That is perfectly proper. A master cannot run the risk of losing his ship simply because someone has been slack. The document says that the rules apply to all British ships registered in the United Kingdom.
Suppose that one of the Service Departments wants to send some ammunition to Korea. I do not know what type of ship normally carries ammunition, but I should imagine that if it were a small consignment it might go to the Far East in a freighter. Suppose that the ammunition is improperly loaded or that it is not marked in accordance with these rules. If the master says that he will not take the ammunition, then it is open to whichever Government Department is affected to say to the captain, "You have forgotten Regulation 76."
I hope the Home Secretary will give this consideration. If I am right, this Defence Regulation by a curious chance invalidates the new rules which have been

brought in under the Merchant Shipping Act, in conformity with an international convention. I make this point partly because the handling of ammunition is a very important matter; safety of this kind cannot be treated lightly. But I also make a constitutional point of some importance: that if these Defence Regulations are left indefinitely in their present form there is bound to be trouble of this kind. It might be argued that "nothing in any restriction imposed by or under any Act" meant any Act passed up to that date; but as the Defence Regulation is reintroduced year in year out, I am sure the courts would interpret it as meaning any Act that was in force at each successive time when the regulation was brought into effect.
This Regulation has never been used. There is no ammunition except Army and defence ammunition. There really is not any need for this Regulation, and it does have the effect of excluding the most important form of ammunition. I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could give an answer on this, and particularly happy if he could give an assurance that he will look into it very carefully in all its ramifications—the United States forces, atomic energy, the safety of troopships, and so on. Perhaps he could come back to the House with a more satisfactory way of handling this very important matter.

Mr. Callaghan: I wish to reinforce the point that has been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), and to emphasise the importance we on this side attach to this Regulation. Both my hon. Friends have explained the grave matters we are dealing with in this Regulation. I am sure it is within the knowledge of the Government Departments concerned, particularly the Service Departments, whom we are glad to see here in the persons of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty and the Under-Secretary for Air.
I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not here, because, although it may be that the Home Office is prepared to take the responsibility for explosives, in fact the Minister of Transport is responsible for the safety of the ports and harbours. These are very serious tasks that fall to him, and his Department should be


represented by him or the Parliamentary Secretary so that they might hear the views we have to put on these matters—for the Minister of Transport is statutorily responsible for making an order. I make a protest that neither the Minister of Transport nor the Parliamentary Secretary is here, particularly since the observations of my hon. Friends are directed especially to him, more even than to the Home Secretary.
Before the war there were written into the byelaws and local Acts of nearly every harbour authority stringent regulations concerning the movement of explosives in and around ports, for obvious and necessary reasons. Ports and harbours are mostly situated in extremely densely populated areas in the commercial centres of large cities, and one has only to reflect upon the situation of the Royal Albert Docks, the Surrey Docks, and the docks at Liverpool, Birkenhead, Southampton, and Hull, from all of which ports ammunition is now being moved.
3.45 a.m.
One has only to reflect upon the nature of the cities and centres of communication to realise how extremely wise the port and harbour authorities were to insist upon making the most stringent regulations concerning the handling of explosives. Where there has been laxity in their operation, the most frightful consequences have taken place. I do not want to comment on the accident at Gosport, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford referred, but there was a similar accident at Gibraltar which resulted in loss of life.
The most striking example in recent years of the catastrophe that can arise from laxity in the handling and movement of explosives was at Bombay in January, 1945, which those of us who were out there at the time—and I happened to be serving with the East Indies Fleet—remember caused a shudder to go through the whole sub-continent, so great was the loss of life and the damage to property that resulted.
Having put the matter in that background, I want to ask the Government why, having suspended, by means of this Regulation, the safety precautions which port and harbour authorities in this country have built up over many years, they have put nothing in their place. If my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford

is right, and I am relying upon him, there has been no order under Paragraph 1 of this Regulation which will provide for safety in the regulating, shipping, handling, storage and movement of ammunition and explosives, although the Government have relaxed other restrictions that were imposed.
It seems to me that this is another most valuable discussion, despite the absence of the Minister of Transport and his Parliamentary Secretary, in order to bring out into the light of day what we have not had for some years—a discussion on the possible consequences of the situation. It is the case that the port and harbour authorities of this country are very concerned about the absence of an order made to provide for their safety. They feel that they are at the moment at the mercy of the Government and will have to throw themselves upon the Government if any substantial catastrophe should take place.
I do not wish to be alarmist about this, but it must be obvious to everyone from the regulations that the port and harbour authorities had built up for themselves before the war, and which were suspended by the Government during the war, that they valued this protection very highly, and indeed compelled the Service Departments to go to isolated harbours round the coast for the loading and discharging of explosives. It took the handling of these highly dangerous weapons away from our crowded cities and industrial areas into places like the West Coast of Scotland and the West Coast of Wales, where they could be handled with comparative safety.
I know of the very stringent precautions that are voluntarily undertaken by the masters of ships, by the owners and by those in the Service Departments, and, indeed, by everybody handling these particular matters. They are very precise in their handling of them, but the fact remains that the Government, at the moment, are requiring the Service Departments to use the main ports and harbours of this country for the handling and conveyance of explosives in a way in which they did not require them to do during the war, with potential consequences of catastrophe which the Government must recognise.
There is a duty on the Government to respond to the demands of the port and


harbour authorities who know the risks being run in the centres of our commercial cities both to life and property. There is nothing which would prevent the Minister of Transport from sitting down with the port and harbour authorities and making an order, as he is entitled to do under paragraph (1) of this Regulation, so that their fears may be allayed and their responsibility more clearly defined, and so that they will not be left in the position in which they are today.
Now that we have the North Atlantic Treaty Powers working in close collaboration with us, we have large-scale exercises on the Continent and in the Atlantic and the North Sea—we have just finished "Exercise Mainbrace"—there are Allied ships of foreign nations using our ports and bringing in ammunition and explosives of all sorts without any of the advantage of the protections we had in peace-time because they have been suspended by this Regulation. There seems to us to be a strong case for the overhauling of this Regulation, and the making of an order which will give greater protection to the port and harbour authorities and, just as important, to the commercial interests which frequent the harbours and ports. It would also protect the lives of those industrial workers who live in these densely populated areas.
I wish to emphasise that their safety is not being jeopardised by any slackness in the movement of ammunition which I have ever seen, but because the Government have not clearly defined the responsibilities of the authorities. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford is to be congratulated on initiating this discussion, and I hope the Government will try to allay the fears which many of us have felt for a long time, although we may not have given expression to them.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I appreciate why the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has said that this is a serious matter, and I am very glad to be able to reassure him on something which would otherwise have seriously troubled his conscience. He was at the Ministry of Transport when this Regulation was in operation, and I am sure that if, when he was at the Ministry, he had seen the conditions he has described to us now

he would have done something about it. The fact is that he has been completely misinformed about the effect of the Regulation. I am sure that neither he nor his Minister would have allowed it to continue in that way.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) suggested that the Regulation was unnecessary and, therefore, useless, because the position was covered by Regulation 2BA. He will appreciate that Regulation 2BA deals with an entirely different point. It gives power to control the keeping, buying and selling, and does not cover the shipping or handling or conveyance. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, said at one point in his speech that an order had been made under this Regulation; but later, when he returned to this point, he said that an order had not been made. But, of course, the Government Explosives in Harbours Order was made in 1939, the day after war started.
Let us look at the effect of that Order because it reflects on the other points upon which doubt has been expressed. The Order begins:
The Minister of Transport may by Order make such provision as appears to him to be required in the interests of safety for regulating shipping, handling, storage, and conveyance. …
It will be appreciated by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have held office that the effect of the phrase:
as appears to be required in the interests of safety
is to limit the Minister's order-making powers to safety regulations. That is the effect of those lines.
Of course the Order which was made said that:
Notwithstanding any restriction imposed by or under any Act in relation to the shipping, unshipping, handling, storage, or conveyance of ammunition, explosives or inflammable substances, the following provisions shall apply to the loading and unloading, storage and conveyance within all harbours in the United Kingdom of ammunition or explosives held for the service of a Government Department.
The hon. Gentleman for Bristol, South-East at one moment appeared to refer to this Order, but I cannot conceive that he has seen it, otherwise he would not have made the speech he did. He went on to raise a point which, if it had had substance, would have been a serious


one; but, of course, he then said that no safety provisions could be applied to the two categories mentioned in paragraph (2) of the Regulation. If I may refer him to that paragraph, it says:
Nothing in any restriction imposed by or under any Act in relation to the area of any harbour authority or canal or inland navigation. …
The point is that that is related to the area of any harbour authority, canal, or inland navigation undertakers, and therefore it does not apply as a general exclusion of the
shipping, unshipping, handling, storage or conveyance in the service of His Majesty or under instructions given on behalf of His Majesty of ammunition, explosives or inflammable substances … or for purposes of defence.
It was believed that that operated as an exclusion of any safety provisions from explosives on Government account. Of course, it does not do anything of the sort, and that is borne out by the Order made in 1939 which has been in operation ever since, and has controlled the matter.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not interrupt much, because this is quite a difficult point.

4.0 a.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is why I am anxious to get it clear, and I hoped to do so by intervening at this stage. As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman—if I followed him correctly, because these are difficult hours of the morning for both of us, and probably for everbody else, too—he says that this provision in Defence Regulation 76 does not invalidate the Merchant Shipping Regulations because Defence Regulation 76 is limited to the area of any harbour authority, canal or inland navigation undertaking in the United Kingdom, and so on. Is it true to say that, although it does not invalidate the Merchant Shipping Regulations in so far as they apply to the areas referred to in paragraph (2) of Defence Regulation 76?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have not read these particular Merchant Shipping Regulations, but I have read merchant shipping regulations all my life and they usually apply to the conditions on ships

and the duties of the people on the ships. They do not usually apply to the area of the harbour. It is not a subject matter about which one usually makes merchant shipping regulations.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do think I ought to be allowed to develop my argument.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has set out to destroy my whole case and I listened very carefully to see where I had slipped up, but it seems to me that he has slipped up, and if I point it out I think it will help. These Regulations dealing with dangerous goods under the Merchant Shipping Act are dealing specifically, throughout at least half their coverage, with the loading and unloading of dangerous goods. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) produced a great pile of these Regulations relating to the Merchant Marine; he read them and we laughed; most of them cover what ships should do while at sea. But with dangerous goods the critical moment is at the moment of loading and unloading. This Order, I think, makes the matter quite clear because it deals with territorial waters in Portsmouth Harbour; it says so. Therefore, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says they do not usually apply to the area of the harbour he has given away most of the case to which I was drawing his attention.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is still, in my opinion, entirely wrong. One thing which is always done by regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act is to provide inter alia for the loading and unloading of ships, which, as he correctly says, usually takes place in harbour. That is the subject matter of Merchant Shipping Regulations, which under the Merchant Shipping Acts with which I am familiar go back to 1894. This Regulation is not dealing with the ship; it is dealing with restrictions imposed in relation to the area, and restrictions in relation to the area are excluded in two categories. But that does not apply to a ship.
The Regulations the hon. Gentleman has in mind are Regulations which are


imposed according to the different ways in which the duties involve various persons responsible for the ship. That is why the fear he expressed on paragraph (2) is one that has no basis. That is made perfectly clear, because the Order made—which I gather the hon. Gentleman has not had the chance of seeing—under the Regulation applies specifically to explosives on Government account. I raise this point because it is important that an answer should be given when it is suggested that the grounds on which we have proceeded since the beginning of the war have been entirely wrong.
I always remember that in my own profession a judgment of the House of Lords put that very succinctly in relation to an Industrial accident, when the Court of Appeal in England suddenly said that the well-known action concerning a workman in breach of statutory duty did not lie by reason of a provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act which, I think, at that time had existed for 30 years. As the grandfather of my colleague, the Under-Secretary, put it in his speech: "It is somewhat unusual when the whole wisdom is hidden from everyone for 30 years and suddenly revealed, even to the Court of Appeal."
With all respect to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who made a most delightful speech on the matter, it would be rather unusual if this Order had been made, and seen by so many different people at the Ministry of Transport who were dealing with the matter, and the invalidity of the Order had been passed by all those people, but had been suddenly revealed to him.

Mr. Ede: "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings …"

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On the broad point which the hon. Gentleman put, namely, the question of safety, I want to make two points. If it were not for the provisions of this Regulation and the power to make orders under it, the movement of Service explosives would, of course, be subject to certain orders; and one has had to balance—and this is the point to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East rightly drew attention—the cessation of those local orders against the greater convenience of speed. Therefore, we have had

to see—the duty is on us to do so—that under this Regulation and the Order we do achieve the same amount of safety. I entirely agree with that.
I go further. The hon. Gentleman would realise that I was going to say this before he made his speech: if he watches me he will see I am referring to the brief with which I have been provided. I say that to reassure him. The point is one that is being considered, and the Home Office and the Ministry of Supply are discussing the arrangements to be made in order that the right kind of control may be provided under the permanent law, and that Regulation 76 may be allowed to lapse.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is a little difficult to understand that my speech was so wrong in view of what he has been saying during the last three minutes. But can he, then, say that the port and harbour authorities are satisfied with what is proposed to be done? Has he had any recent representations from them about the adequacy of the existing arrangements, which are less stringent than they used to be?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No representations have been brought to me. The hon. Gentleman understands why I put it that way—that they are not within my knowledge. But discussions are going on between the two Departments, and I am sure that the relevant people have been consulted.
Just as an annotation to that I should like to say that, of course, it will be appreciated that Regulation 76 would in any event have to be continued until the Visiting Forces Act can be brought into force, because otherwise it would be impossible to provide for the situation, and to decide how to manage the exemptions which have to be given.
Therefore, I hope hon. Gentlemen will not take it amiss if I have argued the point rather acidly, and that they will blame it on the hour of the morning rather than on any feeling on my part about the way it was presented to me. It was rather an important matter, and I tried to deal with it and to make clear that there was not this gap in our safety provisions. I think that it really meets the point which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) had in mind,


and with which we all sympathise. My Department and the Ministry of Supply are engaged in trying to find the best form of permanent legislation.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: Surely a large number of ports have bye-laws prohibiting the discharge or loading of explosives. Is the Minister now taking power to abrogate the bye-laws of the harbour authorities so that he can do as he likes? I have been associated with a port where the loading of munitions had to be taken into the roads. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman abrogates the bye-laws will he have power to stop that? There is another point which has not been raised today. In the port, gas cylinders, which are just as dangerous as ammunition, have been loaded during the last two or three years. Do the Regulations apply to the loading of gas cylinders as well as to ammunition? These cylinders were being loaded to be sunk at sea, but they were being handled by dockers.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the House will allow me to answer, I would say on the first point that we are not introducing this Regulation. It is war-time legislation. To the extent that it deals with local bye-laws it deals with them in relation to the area of any port or harbour. It deals with explosives on Government account for the purposes of defence. With regard to gas, we may have to look into that point. I am also looking into the question of better safety arrangements in the matter of petroleum.

Mr. Ede: It is very important to Bristol.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought the hon. Member had that in mind.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I know that the Home Secretary would not deliberately mislead the House, but is he sure that there has been no recent communication as a result of the port and harbours conference recently in my constituency? We ought to have the Minister of Transport here.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I said that no such communication had come specifically to me.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to pursue the point which has been raised that that Regulation 76 involves the merchant shipping rules to the same

extent as they apply to ships in harbour. The Minister stonewalled over this suggestion with his usual ability. But it was clear to anyone who knows how able he is in dealing with these matters that he is not briefed on this point. His first answer was that the merchant shipping rules did not apply to ships in harbour.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I never said that. I said that this exclusion applies only to restrictions in relation to the area of any harbour. They do not apply to ships as ships.

4.15 a.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I may be wrong because it is early in the morning, but what I clearly understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say was that the merchant shipping rules did not apply to ships in harbour. That was disproved by the quotation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) from the rules themselves. I am glad to accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about that, but he said, secondly, that Regulation 76 applies to the area and the area only, and on that he bases his case.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will follow me a little carefully, which is difficult for us all at this stage, to the area of any harbour or canal authority it excepts the shipping, unshipping and handling of Her Majesty's ammunition. It is, in other words, excepting from the area the shipping in the area, and the other exception is the exception of the conveyance of ammunition in any vessel, which shows quite clearly that shipping is included in the area, that the area includes the harbour and the shipping in the harbour.
Therefore, the contention which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward, that it is the area exclusive of the shipping in the area, cannot apply. This point was raised by my hon. Friend and mentioned specifically to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He has had the opportunity to look this up, to bring forward the precise and detailed explanation for this, and we have not had it. This is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. He has had notice. We are here this morning at this ridiculous hour, dealing with these rather complex Regulations, owing to the


inefficiency of the Leader of the House. It is the least we can expect in circumstances of that kind, when the business of the country has to be debated at this hour of the morning—

Mr. Bing: And the lives of men are involved.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: —when, notice has been given to a Minister that a point affecting his Department is being dealt with, that he should at least have the courtesy to appear here. Even if he does not reply to the debate, he would be able to answer any questions put to him.

Mr. Ede: I think we are entitled to some explanation with regard to the last point raised. I had hoped that we should have heard something from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) informed us that he told the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that he was going to raise certain detailed points. It would have been courteous if we could have been told why the hon. Gentleman is not with us tonight at this stage. My hon. Friend having given notice, if the hon. Gentleman has had, for Departmental or other reasons, to leave the House and go on to other duties, I should have thought it would have been possible for him to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the answers to the specific points.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have answered them.

Mr. Ede: The answers did not seem to us to be as detailed or as authoritative—I do not want to use the word in any offensive sense—as they would have been had they come from the representative of the Ministry concerned.
We have been treated with great courtesy by the Government throughout the night, and I would like to say that we recognise that. After all, I have sat in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position on a similar occasion, and I know how difficult it is to persuade Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries to remain in case they are required. We do not expect the Minister of Transport to be here; we understand the right hon. Gentleman is ill; but,

notice having been given by my hon. Friend to the Parliamentary Secretary, I think that the hon. Gentleman might have seen fit to have been here during the discussion.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very sorry, and I must assume the blame. What we did was to prepare a list, occupying three pages of foolscap—I have it here—and setting out who was to deal with items as they arose. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was here a couple of hours ago, and I think it will be agreed that he gave a full and careful account of what was required. I use no other adjective than that he thought it safe to leave this particular matter to me and, if there have been any shortcomings, the House must put the blame on my shoulders and not consider my hon. Friend to be discourteous; because the arrangement was as I have explained.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has disposed of me on his own, but may I say that I thought it courteous to give notice to the Parliamentary Secretary? The hon. Gentleman told me that he was not responsible, but did say that he would be on the bench. There seems earlier to have been some joke about my age.

Mr. Ede: I congratulated the hon. Gentleman on his age.

Mr. Benn: Well, I accept what has been said. The Parliamentary Secretary did not wish to be discourteous, but I am not satisfied with the answer which has been given to us. The provisions about working under the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Rules, 1952, are concerned with being restricted in the area of a port or harbour, and state:
It shall be unlawful for dangerous goods, being goods contained in a vehicle, receptacle or package, to be taken on board a ship to which this Rule applies for carriage in that ship unless the vehicle, receptacle or package in which the goods are contained is clearly marked with a distinctive label or stencil purporting to indicate the nature of the danger to which the goods give rise, and if the goods are taken on board the ship at any port in the United Kingdom or within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, a label or stencil purporting to indicate the identity of the goods.
I may be wrong, but I can only say that I am not satisfied. I would say that this rule was a restriction imposed in an Act concerning a harbour, and explosives on Government account could be


excluded from this Regulation. But I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy to a layman, and a young one at that.

Sir L. Plummer: I can understand why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport did not deal with this matter; it was too difficult for him, and he was right to leave it with his right hon. and learned Friend who has handled it with his usual charm and skill. But, I still claim that the Regulation is drawn in an obscure way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said he will look into the matter, and I accept that, asking him at the same time to consider how it affects the Visiting Forces Act. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I think it was the intention that the Amendment in my name, to leave out line 18, the next Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), to leave out line 20, the following Amendment in my name to leave out line 21, and the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend to leave out line 24, should be considered together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood more than that. I understood that the five Amendments following that in the name of the right hon. Member were to be taken with that Amendment.

Mr. Ede: Owing to the difficulties under which we labour with regard to time, it is not the intention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch and myself to move the four to which I drew attention. But I want to make the utmost protest against the limitations under which we labour in having to take these matters at the end of a very full day's business and to say that the Government really must not expect that another year we shall be content not to move Amendments which we have put on the Order Paper and which Mr. Speaker has accepted.
This, of course, will mean that we now have to start consideration of the next batch of Amendments with that in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). I think it a great pity that we should not have been able to discuss these other Regulations, which hon. Members

in the present Government always discussed at great length in the past.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Do I understand that the right hon. Member is not moving to leave out line 18?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, nor to leave out line 21.

Mr. Bing: May I say in regard to the Amendment in my name that I have taken the same course as my right hon. Friend, but I also would like to make the strongest possible protest at the inability of the House to have any opportunity to discuss these very important matters, all of which deal with the liberty of the subject? The only reason why I am asking your permission and that of the House not to move these Amendments is that there are so many important matters on the Order Paper and it is important that the House should get on to their discussion, but I think it a scandal and a disgrace that the House should be treated in this way.

Sir Frank Soskice: I beg to move, in line 25, to leave out "ninety," and to insert "ninety-one."
The object of this Amendment is to ascertain from the Attorney-General whether he is quite satisfied that he and his colleagues are justified in asking for a further term of operation for Regultion 90. This Regulation was first formulated in 1940 and it was continued under the Labour Government in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the Emergency Laws (Transitional Powers) Act, 1946, and the Act of 1947. I am ready to recognise that there was a very good case for having that Regulation at one time. It was obviously necessary during the war and we thought it justifiable and necessary to continue it in operation for a period of years after the war. But we have always regarded with some anxiety some words which appear in paragraph (1) of the Regulation.
4.30 a.m.
The purport of this Amendment is to ask the Attorney-General whether he feels satisfied, acting as the guardian of the administration of our criminal law, that there is still a sufficient case in 1952 for retaining this Regulation with those words in it. The Regulation creates the


offence of attempting and conspiring with any other person to commit offences against the Defence Regulations. It makes it an offence for any person to do any act:
preparatory to the commission of an offence against any of these Regulations. …
Those are the words about which I and my colleagues feel some anxiety. They obviously served a purpose during the stringent period of the war and thereafter, but is the Attorney-General still satisfied that they are necessary as part of our criminal code? These Defence Regulations are part of our criminal code. Does the Attorney-General still think it necessary to have words which make it an offence not merely to conspire or to attempt to do something which is prohibited but which go further and make it an offence to do any act preparatory to the commission of any such offence?
The words are extremely far-reaching. They go earlier in date to the beginning of the attempt. They go earlier in date to the actual formulating of a conspiracy. They seem to relate to the doing of something at a stage before the actual beginning of the offence itself. The effect of the words is made even more grave by the next paragraph, which makes it a further offence to assist any other person to commit an offence against paragraph (1).
I should like the Attorney-General to say whether during the last year he has had reason to make use of these words; whether anybody has been prosecuted for the offence of doing an act preparatory to the commission of some transgression against the Regulation; what was the result of the prosecution, if there was one, and whether any appeal was taken against it. Also I should like to know whether the Court of Criminal Appeal has felt difficulty in construing those words. If the Attorney-General has not found it necessary to use these words and if the courts have not been called upon to interpret them, then it is now time, many years after the war, no longer to continue their existence in this Regulation.
I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that Regulations creating offences should, so far as possible, be looked at and, so far as it is necessary to retain them, should be

embodied as part of the permanent criminal law. I would say that there was a case for some years after the war for retaining this Regulation, but now, in 1952, I suggest that if the Attorney-General has had no occasion to invoke them, if the courts have not had to interpret these words, and if experience has not shown that it is necessary to have recourse to them, there is no satisfactory reason for continuing them.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us information about the number of prosecutions which hinged upon these words. If he feels on reflection that it is not really necessary to retain them, I hope that he will agree that this Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Irvine: I support the view of my right hon. and learned Friend. In the words of this Regulation,
any act preparatory to the commission of an offence,
we have all the objectionable features that so often attach to emergency provisions. They are very wide in their effect and they are far too comprehensive. It would certainly be a great satisfaction to us to have some information on what use has been made of these provisions by the Government, and a greater satisfaction to learn that they were contemplating a partial revocation of the Regulation so that this provision could be eliminated.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Is there anywhere else in the criminal law a similar provision as regards acts preparatory to committing an offence?

Mr. W. Ross: May I draw attention to the fact that this Regulation is applicable to Scotland also? I have a number of pertinent questions to put, but we are without the services of the Scottish Law Officer. In fact, it is so long since we have seen the Scottish Law Officer that I am beginning to forget what he looks like. It is a grave reflection on the Government that they cannot provide a Law Officer to answer Scottish questions.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir Frank Soskice) for his giving me notice of the points he was going to raise. That is of great assistance; it is


only what I would have expected of him. I think I can shorten matters very much by saying I was very glad to consider the point. I agree most heartily that criminal provisions contained in Regulations of this kind should be most carefully scrutinised, and that care should be taken, so far as possible, to limit these special provisions to cases in which they are absolutely necessary. It will be appreciated, however, that it is not possible to amend these Regulations so as to put them into better form, and there are, therefore, cases where it is necessary to retain a Regulation if there is a part of it, which is not separable, that is really necessary.
I agree, on consideration of the matter, with regard to the reference to doing acts
preparatory to the commission of an offence.
that it is not desirable. In answer to the question by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), it is a fact that "act preparatory" occurs in the Official Secrets Act, 1911. Whether that is a respectable parentage or not, I will not discuss at the moment. At any rate, so far as this Regulation is concerned, I entirely agree that it is not a desirable feature. So far as I know, it has never been relied upon; certainly it has never been relied upon successfully in any prosecution, and I agree it should disappear as soon as possible.
It will be necessary, however, to take special steps to revoke, by Order in Council, the provision which makes that particular part of the wording applicable. All that I can say to the House is that I do intend to have steps taken to revoke that provision by Order in Council as soon as possible.

Sir F. Soskice: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his extremely courteous and helpful reply, and, in view of what he has said, to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to move, in line 29, to leave out "seventeen E."
This Amendment has been put down for the purpose of obtaining from the

learned Attorney-General some explanation for the continuance of this Regulation. This Regulation is one with which I had a good deal to do during the war period by reason of the position I then occupied, and it was of very great value in helping soldiers serving overseas in connection with such matters as the proceedings which they were often compelled to bring in the magistrates' courts. It provides that there shall be an extension of time within which proceedings can be taken by soldiers serving overseas under the separation and maintenance Acts.
I find it difficult to believe that the continuance of this Regulation is justified at the present moment, when it would be quite possible, under the existing legal aid arrangements in the Army, to ensure that the soldier is sent back to this country in time to enable him to take such proceedings as may be necessary, without the extension of time provided for. There is much more that could be said on this subject, but it is quite fantastic that, at this time of the morning—4.42 a.m.—it should be necessary to argue this Amendment to the extent which it deserves to be argued. I therefore suggest that the learned Attorney-General might be able to give us some really adequate reason why he wants this particular Regulation continued.

Mr. Irvine: I beg to second the Amendment.
In this instance, it would appear that we are dealing with a provision which it is desirable should take a permanent place in the statute law of this country. This is a Regulation which affords a very real assistance to members of the Forces serving overseas, and, as there are still large numbers of British citizens concerned, and as, so far as we can see, that is likely to remain the case for many years, this would seem, I repeat, to be a provision which it is desirable should find a place permanently in our statute law. This Amendment provides the Government with an opportunity of stating what their intentions are in that regard.

The Attorney-General: I can say at once that it is proposed to make this Regulation permanent under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I do not know whether it is really necessary to say any more than that.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of that very satisfactory undertaking by the learned Attorney-General, which meets the point entirely, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in line 31, to leave out "II"
I gather it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this Amendment together with the following Amendments to leave out "III" and to leave out "twenty-six," although we may have to take them separately for voting purposes.
They concern the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939, which deal with the various marketing schemes. We know that the present Government came into office having declared themselves vigorously on the subject of marketing schemes; that they were in favour of going ahead with new producer marketing schemes where they were submitted by the industry and of resuscitating, certainly, the Milk Marketing Board, and possibly some others.
Regulation 26 is the Regulation under which the Milk Marketing Board is suspended from its marketing powers and made answerable in all details to the Ministry of Food. The Regulation sets up a complete duplicate of operators and operations. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture wrote a pamphlet on agricultural marketing, which was published in 1951, in which he discussed this very thing. I wish to make two short quotations from it, not because I want to score points or because it cannot be said that we did not have time to do it; but because, after hon. Gentlemen opposite came to power, having declared themselves so firmly in favour of doing something with the least delay, they are under a special obligation to justify themselves when they do indulge in delay.
On page 39 of the pamphlet the hon. Gentleman came to his conclusions, which, I must say, did not seem to be very conclusive:
The conditions which justified State trading in war-time have now disappeared. There is no doubt that the public interest could be better served by restoring the trading powers to the traders.

On page 41, he said:
To summarise, it is in the public interest that the pre-war boards be restored to their full trading powers without further delay.
That was, I repeat, written in 1951, after an extensive and exhaustive study of the subject. The hon. Gentleman has had rather more than a year since then and still we have no action at all. And the Government are now asking us to renew for a further period the very Regulation which prevents the Milk Marketing Board from getting on with the job which, I agree, they did extremely efficiently in the period when they had full possession of their powers.
We are asking the hon. Gentleman to justify the delay which has already occurred in putting into operation what he declared so firmly should be done in 1951, and to justify the further request that there should be another year's delay during which these interminable talks can continue. It would be an abuse of the hospitality of the House to enter into a lengthy discussion about marketing boards and policy, but there is little doubt that a successful milk policy, and particularly the development of other forms of consuming milk other than drinking, will not be developed until we give back to this board its marketing powers.
Not only do I believe that the Milk Marketing Board is essential to a good milk policy, but I think it is essential to a good livestock policy far we cannot afford an easy distinction between beef and milk herds. The two must go hand in hand, and the development of a good livestock policy is hanging fire because we are not going ahead with milk policy at the same time.
Another point which is perhaps more important is that the present situation is very expensive. The Milk Marketing Board have a very efficient accounting and office arrangement at Thames Ditton. They are, in fact, doing the job, while the Ministry of Food maintain a little army of people who do really very little else but check the army of people which the Milk Marketing Board employ. I do not know how big the milk division of the Ministry is now, but it is not negligible.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how many officers are employed in the milk division, how many


are engaged in checking the operations of the Milk Marketing Board, and what the cost is of the division to the country because of this duplication. We could get rid of the duplication and some of the cost if we were prepared to take a decision here and now. The hon. Gentleman will remind me that we had this under consideration for some years. I repeat what I said before, that we were considering it in years nearer to the war and were starting from scratch.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have come in to start work where we left off, with the additional argument that they had already so clearly made up their minds before they came to power and had clearly declared what it was needed to be done. It is difficult to see what has prevented them doing it in the past 12 months, and what makes them want a further 12 months. I find it difficult to believe that they should be granted an extension of this Regulation, and I hope for a convincing case from the Parliamentary Secretary, or a frank avowal that the Regulation is not required.
Parts II and III of the 1939 Regulation deal with the old bacon and livestock schemes. Here there is a very different case, but a very strong case indeed, for not proceeding with these Regulations. The bacon marketing scheme, which was put into cold storage when the war broke out, had never been a very successful marketing scheme. Various arrangements were made to keep it technically in being. A number of people have to remain on the board; there has to be a certain quorum, I think two; and there are provisions about payment. No one who knows any-think about this subject can possibly imagine that the pre-war bacon schemes can come back at all in their pre-war form. The amendments to the 1949 Act, for one thing, preclude it. It just could not be resuscitated.
For another thing, thought in the industry has gone a long way beyond that; it was never very widely accepted before; there was a good deal of doubt and dispute about it, and the recent National Farmers' Union Working Party report makes it quite clear that the resuscitation of this bacon scheme or the livestock scheme is not now in accord with general thinking. If we got rid of them altogether we should be doing what everybody concerned with the industry knows has got to be done. It really in-

volves dropping these two Regulations and then taking the necessary positive action to wind up the two schemes.
I am sure that there is no argument that can be adduced in support of keeping these two schemes in cold storage except, "We might as well keep them there until we get firm future decisions about policy." I do not think that is a very good thing. We were told the other night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with a great flourish that the Government believe in getting rid of any Regulations that do not make sense. On that occasion I thought they got rid of a very good one for a very poor reason. Here we have two which do not make sense and we ought to get rid of them.
In addition, at the moment they are costing somebody some money; some expenditure is involved. The Parliamentary Secretary may very well say it is not coming out of the public purse. Well, it must be coming from the funds which were built up, and those funds belong to the industry; either they ought to be returned or they ought to be kept for use in a much more positive and progressive way.
The maintenance of two of these Regulations in this form is rather silly. The Milk Marketing Board suspension Regulation is a very bad thing and ought to be ended. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us tonight that he will take positive action to deal with the first two, and that he proposes, for very convincing reasons, either that we can afford to leave the Regulation for a short while or else to withdraw it altogether and then let the Milk Marketing Board revert to the position all of us who are concerned with agriculture here tonight know it ought to have.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I want to join my right hon. Friend in asking what is the justification for the continuance of these Regulations. The Regulations had one purpose, and that was the war-time suspension of the marketing boards. It is true that the cases now differ as between the Livestock Act, the Bacon Marketing Board and the Milk Marketing Board, all of which came into operation in October, 1933. These boards were placed in cold storage at the end of the war and remain there still.


These marketing arrangements have been under continuous examination since the end of the war. Since 1945 we have had a careful examination made by the Lucas Committee. It is true that neither the Government nor the Opposition of that day accepted the conclusions of that Committee, but it did make a careful examination of these marketing arrangements and produced a body of evidence which will be of value to us.
The whole of the arrangements for marketing have been under close examination in the light of all our prewar experience, and the Ministry and the Ministers have had to consider all these arrangements in the light of the 1947 Act, which gave a guaranteed price and security of market to the farmers. Of course, it made it absolutely necessary that the pre-war marketing board system should in fact be slightly adjusted to fit in with the new situation created by the Act of 1947, but we did have, in 1949, the Agricultural Marketing Act which gave to the Minister new powers which met the new situation created by the 1947 Act. The Minister's authority was greatly increased; his powers were widened in order that the consumer might be protected in a situation in which we had injected a subsidy as between the producer and the eventual consumer of the article being sold.
5.0 a.m.
When we were in Government we were, as my right hon. Friend has said, told from time to time by the then Opposition, by those who spoke on agricultural matters, that the Tories favoured a return to the producer marketing boards. They said, "We favour a return of those boards provided there are certain safeguards introduced." They mentioned particularly, in the Tory Agricultural Charter, the necessity for ensuring that there would be a greater degree of supervision by Parliament and of the responsibility of Ministers to it. That Charter was dated June, 1948. It is quite clear to me that minds were already made up on the Tory side on this point of the restoration of certain safeguards added to the producer marketing boards. The Act of 1949 did, in fact, make provision for that legislative protection which was mentioned in the Charter.
In the debate which we had in the House on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Marketing Act the present Minister of Agriculture, speaking for the Tory Front Opposition Bench said:
We are still firmly convinced that the most economical means of handling and marketing home produce is through the medium of producers' marketing boards and that the basic principles of the Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933 should be maintained for this purpose.
Later, he said:
When the time comes for Members on this side of the House to resume the responsibility of government—and that time will come—we shall continue to encourage producers to use the facilities of the Agricultural Marketing Acts for the efficient production and marketing of their products."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 197–203.]

Mr. E. G. Gooch: They have forgotten all about it.

Mr. Champion: There was no ambiguity about it. Minds were clearly made up firmly on this point. But we have, as also my right hon. Friend said, this pamphlet, which was written by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who, I believe, is to reply to the debate. I must say that it appeared to me to be an excellent summary of the position under the Marketing Acts.

Mr. G. Brown: Impossible.

Mr. Champion: It is true that it gave rather more credit to the Tories than they deserved, and rather less to the Labour Acts which have been passed in this connection. We were told—and although this was called a discussion pamphlet this particular part of it certainly was an assertion, and not something which was for discussion—that
Although it is not easy to devise a satisfactory method by which the Marketing Boards could handle the deficiency payment, the difficulty is not insuperable, and there is no doubt that a solution could be found when the decision on policy has been taken.
Therefore, clearly, all they had to do was to take a decision on policy and it would be easy to find a solution of the problem of the deficiency payment. If that was the case, why has that decision not been taken? They have had 12 months in which to do it, and to go on from that to giving the Department the job of finding a solution which is apparently an easy one to find.
There is in the pamphlet a number of other things with which I will not deal, as my hon. Friend touched upon them; but there is no doubt that their minds were made up, and that people who read that pamphlet were led to believe that this was a matter easy of solution. At the back of the book were given notes for discussion group leaders, who were told, in those notes, that they should be careful to keep the discussion away from vague generalities, and within the scope of the experience of their members.
The Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary ought themselves to keep away from the vague generalities which we have had up to now and concentrate on the business of providing a set of marketing schemes which will give us what we want, give the producers what they want, and under which I believe they would be able to make improvements in their methods of marketing and production.
It seems strange to me that the right hon. Gentleman, should tell the Scarborough Conference this year that the best way of forming producer marketing boards to meet present day needs was not easy to find. That came after the story we had been told about how easy it would be to do the job providing the policy decision were taken. I should add that he went on bravely to say that the Government was determined that a solution should be found, and found quickly. The Milk Marketing Board has expressed eagerness to resume its functions. We are right in asking where lies the delay.
It is no good hon. Members asking why we did not do it. As far as I remember, we never suggested that all that was necessary was a policy decision and the solution of all these difficulties would come from that. We were nearer the war, and there was the fact that we recognised the difficulties; but the time has come when a decision ought to be taken and when, in regard to the Milk Marketing Board, control should be handed back with the addition of the safeguards made possible under the 1949 Act.

Mr. Harold Davies: We have seen that the National Farmers' Union and interested members of the farming fraternity are anxious for clarification of the

marketing position. Farmers are asking for an early decision, and marketing reform is obviously an urgent problem which in the national interest ought to be solved. The purpose of these Defence Regulations was, obviously, to weigh one national interest against another. The need for more food production and better methods of marketing with, if possible, cheaper distribution, is greater than the maintenance of these Regulations.
I understand that the Minister of Agriculture now has 13 wise men of farming to act as liaison between the counties and Whitehall. I wonder what the secret thoughts of the 13 wise men are at the moment about this position? My hon. Friend has been talking about the agricultural charter. I have taken the trouble, as a good Socialist, to read all the literature of my opponents and I have in my hand two documents written at different times, one in June, 1948, and the other a little later, about the position of marketing and the agricultural charter which was launched upon the world at the famous Welsh town of Llandudno, in 1948.
In one of these documents we were given the impression that the "wicked" Socialists were maintaining all these Regulations and limiting marketing purposely, and we were also given to understand that when the Conservatives got into power, in considering distribution and marketing they would:
oppose the continuation of the powers of the Ministry of Food … We believe that the permanent responsibility of the Government for seeing that the nation is properly fed can best be discharged in future by a partnership between the Ministry of Agriculture, as responsible for home food production, and the departments concerned with the consumer, distributor and overseas trade.
What opportunity of partnership for the Minister of Agriculture exists in these peremptory powers that even this House, after tonight, will not be able to discuss? The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Agriculture also said:
Efficient marketing can and should be provided in future by a further development of producers' organisations, both voluntary co-operatives and statutory Marketing Boards.
Here comes the nub:
We wish to see the local organisations of these bodies strengthened.


How can local organisations of these bodies be strengthened if the Government retains these powers? He continues:
In the stable and prosperous conditions which we believe our agricultural policy will provide, these producer bodies will be free—as they certainly were not free in the days of world economic depression before the war. … They must provide a full service of market intelligence and arrange for the storage or processing of temporary gluts.
We are told in the famous document which was issued four years before this one that
… the regulation of imports and the completion of the Marketing Act of 1931 by the Marketing Act of 1933 gave the impetus for which organised marketing had been waiting.
The agricultural world is waiting for that impetus now.
The farmer was at last given the chance to work under conditions of reasonable security. The Milk Marketing Boards were started forthwith and can bear comparison with any similar agricultural organisations in the world. The high milk output of this country before the war, and increase in the sales of liquid milk during the war—on which the whole of our war-time nutrition has pivoted—were made possible by the work of the producers' organisations. The positive achievements of the Marketing Boards have been underrated.
I believe, therefore, that following truthfully their own policy, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot honestly ask for these Regulations to go through tonight. I would ask the Government to look at this again. The main functions of the Marketing Boards, we are told, have been suspended. The Ministry of Food was formed for buying and sharing out the total available supplies under a fair system of rationing and price control so that the basic foods were within the financial and physical resources of every family in the land. At least, that was so when we were in power, but now it is rationing by the purse.
The Government condemns the very Regulations for which it seeks an extension this morning, and without further ado I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw them. The Government will not believe me because its supporters do not read their own literature. I have previously had to leave the Chamber to get into touch with that oracle, "Winnie Welcome," and I shall be forced to try to ring her up later this morning to ask what her policy is so far as these market-

ing Boards and these Regulations are concerned. I support whole-heartedly my hon. Friends in the plea they have put forward.

5.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I fear that I shall have to ask the House to reject these three Amendments, despite the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I will deal, first, with the Milk Marketing Board, to which the greater part of the argument has been directed. My right hon. Friend has said on more than one occasion that he hopes to see the powers of the Milk Marketing Board restored at an early date, and he has more than once declared his belief in the value of that body. This morning, I am happy to find myself joining him in that.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman would lose his job otherwise.

Mr. Nugent: I feel relatively safe in my position compared with what must be the plight of some hon. Members opposite; especially when I think of how the last Division resulted.
But to proceed with the subject of the Milk Marketing Board. The last statement by my right hon. Friend was on 13th November, when he stated, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd):
I can give an assurance that the Government are prepared to consider sympathetically schemes promoted under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931–49, designed to meet current needs and requirements for the efficient and economic marketing of home produce.
Then, he said that each scheme would be considered on its merits, and went on to say that he had had three draft schemes—for apples and pears, herbage seeds, and peas—under consideration for some time. He added:
I propose to initiate discussions with the promoters without delay on two of these schemes with a view to their early presentation to the House. The issues raised by the application of the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales for restoration of its marketing powers include the question of the method for implementing Part 1 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. These issues are being dealt with in the review of various aspects of long-term policy which I announced early this year and which I hope, in consultation with representatives of the industry, to carry a great deal further before next spring."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 78–79.]


Having acknowledged our interest in and our support for this development, may I say that I am delighted to find hon. Members of the Opposition declaring themselves in favour of it also. Occasionally, there have been doubts in some quarters about the wisdom of restoring these powers and it is encouraging to us, grappling with the difficult problem of finding a satisfactory form for that restoration, to have the support of all concerned.
I think it fair to remind the right hon. Member, although he tried to reduce the argument, that the application for the restoration of the trading powers of the board was made to his Administration in the early part of 1950. It is true that the pamphlet from which he read and which I wrote indicated that the powers could be restored soon after we took office, but we did suppose that in the 18 months or so when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were governing and had received the application, they had done a great deal more work on it than we found they had done. The fact is that despite the right hon. Member and his friends having put the 1949 Act on the Statute Book the amount of work they actualy did on the application for the restoration of the powers of the board was extremely small.

Mr. G. Brown: This is a remarkable doctrine. I will not go into the question of what the hon. Gentleman found on the files; his opinion is as good as mine as far as the House is concerned. But will he tell me where, in the 53 pages of this pamphlet, he makes the categorical statement that the powers of the board should be restored straightway? Where does he refer to the work the Government have done?

Mr. Nugent: When writing the pamphlet, I knew that the right hon. Member had had 15 months—

Mr. Brown: Where did the hon. Gentleman say so?

Mr. Nugent: We are not debating the pamphlet. If I were to include in the pamphlet every opinion and source of information it would be a great deal more than 50 pages. There is nothing in the comment of the right hon. Member which destroys my comment that it was reasonable to expect that he would have made some progress with the application made

to his Administration. The fact is that my right hon. Friend and I are giving urgent attention to the question of restoring the powers of the board and that we have made some progress in the preparatory work. We are hopeful, on the lines my right hon. Friend has indicated, that there may be further progress to report in the next few months.
The right hon. Member asked a question about the cost of the board at present. As he will probably remember, the financial agreement between the Ministry of Food and the board is a fairly complicated one and I do not suppose the House would wish me to give details at this hour of the morning.

Mr. Brown: It was only the cost of the Ministry of Food Milk Division for which I asked.

Mr. Nugent: If the right hon. Gentleman wants that particular figure I think he had better put down a Question to my right hon. Friend. The annual cost of administrative expenses is £600,000 for the functions which the board carries out for the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Brown: That is not what I asked What I want to know is if duplication exists in the Milk Division of the Ministry of Food. If he has not the figures the hon. Gentleman ought to have them. I want to know how many officials they employ to check the work of the Milk Division and what that costs, because that is on top of the £600,000.

Mr. Nugent: I very much doubt whether my right hon. Friend would agree that there was duplication. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question to my right hon. Friend I am sure that he will be given the best answer possible. The broad picture of the marketing of milk is that for the present we require this Regulation so that the Ministry of Food can continue with the arrangement until such time as we have worked out a solution satisfactory both to producers, consumers and the distributive trade, to restore the trading powers of the Milk Marketing Board.
The boards for the bacon industry and the livestock industry were also mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman said that these bodies no longer had a useful purpose and, therefore, should be wound up. It is true that the Bacon Board, the


Pigs Board and the Bacon Development Board have been in cold storage ever since the beginning of the war and that the Livestock Commission has been suspended. But none of these bodies is costing public funds anything at present. The Bacon Board and the Pigs Board have very small expenses and, such as they are, they are paid out of their own funds. The Livestock Commission is completely suspended, only the powers remaining.
It has been thought by the Government, and indeed by previous Governments, that until such time as the future of livestock marketing has been decided—and it is a big and complicated subject—it would be wrong finally to wind up these boards even if there was a possibility that they might not be needed in future. It is for that reason that we feel, especially with regard to the two previous producer marketing boards which had an independent identity, that it is only fair to them to leave them legally in being until such time as the whole future of livestock marketing has been decided.

Mr. Mitchison: Even at this hour of the morning, not being particularly an agriculturist, I want to make a protest to the agriculturists. For 13 years they have had a body called the Bacon Development Board in what has been described as cold storage. I have just been looking at what that cold storage is, and a more unreal phantasmal existence I have never seen attributed to any public body before. It is just kept alive. It has an emergency committee that may be paid up to £100 a year if the Minister thinks it ought to have the money.
Surely, if the combined wisdom of successive Governments and successive Ministries cannot produce a more sensible expedient than to keep a body for 13 years in that state of ghostly existence, then there must be something wrong somewhere. The Ministry of Agriculture pullulates boards and commissions all over the place. In this instance, it might give way to its natural impulse and kill this board instead of keeping it officiously alive like this.
It is the most sinister comment on the British view of what research ought to be to see what the board—poor, ghostly thing—has by way of retaining powers. For 13 years it has been taking such steps as it thinks desirable to pre-

serve its assets. It may have hired or let out its rooms, or the services of its staff; it may even have made some payments to them; but the only approach to an active function carried on by this extraordinary body is that it may research into the production and marketing of pigs suitable for bacon, or the production and marketing of bacon, if the Minister or the Minister of Food allows it to do it. What a contemptuous view of research!
5.30 a.m.
May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that I have a constituent who thinks he has discovered a cure for bowel oedema in pigs? I understand that if he has discovered a cure—who am I to know?—it may be of considerable value. If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister persist in keeping this poor ghost alive, I hope that they will give it the job of dealing with my constituent.

Mr. G. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was one of the most appalling that I have heard, and I say that with all the affection I have for him. There was not a single word of defence of the Bacon Board, the Pigs Board, or the Livestock Commission. He merely said that the Government could not think of any good reason for winding them up and that they were keeping them on in the hope of thinking of something eventually. If that is how the Defence Regulations are being carried on, it is poor do.
So far as the Milk Board is concerned, we now understand that what the Parliamentary Secretary wrote was written on assumptions that turned out to be wholly false, and that, therefore, the conclusions were also false. The agricultural representatives on the Government side have left us severely alone in this, as in the other agricultural debate. I commend to them what the Parliamentary Secretary said tonight about Conservative policy written before he came into office.
The only other comment I address to the Home Secretary. The Government have come here to seek approval for the carrying on of Regulations and when they are asked what it costs to keep up the machinery we are told to put down a Question next week so that we may get an answer. It is no part of my business to absolve the Government


from their misdeeds. If they want to be convicted in the agricultural areas of having no sense of urgency, in a sense I am content. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, line 31, to leave out "twenty-nine." I understand it would be for the convenience of the House if, in dealing with this Amendment, I also referred to the Amendments to leave out "twenty-five A," and to leave out "and thirty."
This small group of Regulations should be taken rather seriously—in some respects a little more seriously than hitherto. I will deal with the Amendment concerning twenty-five A, which relates to agricultural wages in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will have something to say upon it later. The only claim that I have to be dealing with Scotland is that my maternal grandmother came from Edinburgh, but that would give me a greater claim to be the Secretary of State for Scotland than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to be the Minister for Wales.
What I am puzzled about is that this Regulation gives the Secretary of State for Scotland power to prescribe minimum wages lower for certain classes of people than the minimum wages prescribed in the appropriate wages order. What I find it difficult to understand is why that power should be in a Defence Regulation continued from year to year. It may or may not be a good thing that some people working in agriculture should be paid less than the minimum wage. We have grown used to the practice in agriculture—though I have never been very happy about it—of paying certain groups less than the minimum wage, the justification being that these people would never be employed at all if they had to justify earning their full corn, and so we have let it go with reluctance.
In England and Wales, this power is part of our ordinary agricultural wages procedure, enshrined in orders dealt with by the wages boards. We have no Defence Regulations. There must be some history behind this. I am not clear how this grew up, but I cannot think that it can possibly be right that it should be

carried out in this way. If it is to be done at all, it must be justified as part of the permanent legislation.
The Secretary of State must justify to the House using Defence Regulations for these people, when it is not so done in England and Wales, and when the matter does not seem to have any relation to Defence Regulations, even in Scotland. It may or may not be right to agree to this provision, though I am sure it is not in that form, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a strong reason for so doing, or say that he will recommend that it be dropped.
The other two Amendments are to leave out Regulations 29 and 30. Regulation 29 deals with the employment of children in agricultural work. This is something which we could talk about a great deal and on which we could light another bonfire. This was a hotly disputed provision, and I have always taken the view, not that it is necessarily harmful, but that children are at school to learn, and we all spend far too short a time in our lives doing that very essential preliminary to the rest of our lives. Therefore, it is not a good thing to pass too easily provisions by which that very short period can itself be shortened still further.
This provision gives to the Ministries power to allow the local education authorities to exempt children from attending school for certain periods of the year in order that they may help with the collecting of the potato harvest. I have little doubt that it has been extremely useful in certain years in the immediate past, but I have a very strong feeling that we are rather slow in developing a really good mechanical potato harvester, as much because of it being too easy to find other ways of getting the harvest in as for any other single reason. My own feeling is that, if we make it not quite so easy, we shall put a good deal more pressure on the development of mechanical ways of doing the job.
I do not believe it is necessary to carry these Defence Regulations at all. I think the time has come when the Government should say that the industry is going to organise its own forms of seasonal labour and its own way of doing the job. Whatever the difficulties have been in the past, it is now much easier to get seasonal


labour. It is much easier now to get people to lift the potatoes if we are prepared to pay them, and I believe the time has come to drop this Regulation.
If the Government feel they must keep this power I think this is essentially one which should be defended and enshrined in an amendment to the Education Act. This is rather a sly way—I use that word because I cannot think of another at the moment—of getting this hotly-contested and unpopular power in a manner which is unlikely to arouse much public attention. If this or any other Government had to justify it properly by an amendment to the Education Act, they would think several times about it. I do not think it is a very good thing to try to slip it through in this way.
So far as the "and thirty" Amendment is concerned, I fail to see that anything can be said for this Regulation at all. It is a Regulation which takes children and young persons working in agriculture out of the protection of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and makes it possible to prescribe longer hours for work in agriculture. I cannot believe that anyone can argue that children should be worked longer on the land than in some factory premises. We know how this matter arose and how much hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have pressed for the removal of other things imposed in 1939 and 1940. In the conditions prevailing in 1952, there can be no argument for carrying this on.
If the Home Secretary, who has a great interest in the protection of young people, realised that he is asking us to make provision for working children longer than is permissible under the main Act, I do not think he would do so. If Tory agriculturalists want this power, they should make an Amendment to the Children and Young Persons Act, but I do not believe they would attempt to do that. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the benefit of his humanity and understanding and come to the conclusion that it is not proper to slip this Regulation through at a quarter-to-six in the morning after a Sitting which has lasted 16 hours already.
Because of the time, I repress my natural instincts to press this much harder. No doubt my hon. Friends will support me, and also, I hope, some of

the hon. Members opposite who must have had a boring time sitting silently listening to our speeches, good though they may be. It must be very hard for them to restrain themselves. We ought to get more agriculturalists and humane persons on the benches opposite to support us, and I hope that with this argument the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that he will not press for the continuance of any of these three Regulations.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Ross: In Regulation 25A we have a very strange power still being wielded by a Minister of the Crown. One of the things Ministers of Labour in this country have been chary of doing is to take the power to fix wages, and yet we have in this Regulation the power retained by the Secretary of State for Scotland not only to fix wages but to fix them lower than the minimum; in other words, to discriminate in wages.
We are discriminating against school children. It would be out of order to argue now whether we should employ school children at all, but I hope the Government will give us a better opportunity on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill next week to deal with this question as far as Scotland is concerned. Other categories mentioned in the Schedule are students and those in the schemes for the employment of youth service groups. Another provision underlines our point about the need for permanent legislation, because it refers to the Women's Land Army, which no longer exists. Schemes for volunteers for forestry operations during holiday periods are mentioned, and another provision deals with whole-time male workers detained under the Royal Prerogative.
First of all, the Parliamentary Secretary has to justify why it should be necessary for the Secretary of State to take for himself such powers, and secondly he has to justify the discrimination itself. There are many of us who feel that this could become a cheap labour charter. It is the last thing a Minister of the Crown surely should take upon himself. Why should these people be paid less than anyone else? I am one of those who believe children should be paid far more. I am not talking about those whose mental age may equal that of children, but those whose physical efforts are far more


valuable to themselves and their parents than they are when the same kind of job is being done by a more elderly person. If we must employ children on these jobs, we should not be giving a Minister the right to prescribe not only wages lower than the minimum, but also to discriminate within his own discrimination because he can discriminate between boys and girls, according to paragraph (3).

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with Regulation 25A. If he looks at Regulation 30 (3A), I think that covers the very point he is making.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at that again, he will see that there is no reference to its application to Scotland. Paragraph (3) of Regulation 25A gives a very wide power to the Secretary of State for Scotland in dealing with the kind of work to which he can apply this lower than the minimum, namely:
Any such class or description of workers may be defined in such manner as the Secretary of State may think fit, and in particular may be defined by reference to all or any of the following matters, namely, the nature or circumstances of their work or employment, and their age and sex.
He has got very, very wide powers of discrimination. But it goes still further. He can lower the minimum according to the time of year, and according to whether they are working for a week, a day or a month. Even if a minimum wage has been laid down by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, the Secretary of State can override that minimum. The retention of these powers will take some justification.
We were told in Scotland that there was a new breeze blowing through St. Andrew's House. I have often wondered why we have had a special Minister of State appointed for Scotland, and then an additional Joint Under-Secretary of State so that we now have three. We have got two Law Officers, one of whom is not in the House and the other of whom is seldom in the House. If powers like these are retained, the Secretary of State will require quite a number of people to help him.
Surely at this time of day and after a year's consideration the Government should have scrapped this. If any such

power is still required, the Government should have handed it over to the Agricultural Wages Board and let the people who know the industry on both sides decide what is to be done. Certainly the Secretary of State should not leave himself open to the quite justified points I am now making. He is here wielding powers of a cheap labour charter over the children of Scotland, over the young people who volunteer and over people who do the work, having been let out of prison for the purpose; and I hope he will justify, first of all, the retention of that power by the Secretary of State rather than handing it over to anyone else, and secondly, the further discrimination according to age, sex, time, and even calendar.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I should like to comment very briefly on Regulation 29, concerning the employment of children in agricultural work. I do not think we can this morning go into all the pros and cons of what is undoubtedly a highly controversial question in the countryside. Having represented rural districts I know that there is a section of the farming community which believes that this is permanently necessary, that it is right and a good thing that there should be the employment of children as seasonal labour in the countryside, and that they should be let off by the education authority for the purpose. On the other hand, education authorities are very critical of this power, and there is much argument that the children do not at school work long enough or hard enough in present conditions.
However, that is not really the question that we have to discuss now. The point is that this power was introduced in emergency conditions of war, because of the shortage of agricultural labour, and it has been allowed to continue year after year ever since. We really ought now to face the fact that either the power should be abolished, because it was necessitated only by emergency conditions, or it should be embodied permanently in an educational Statute. There is an Education Bill with miscellaneous provisions just produced, and that would obviously be a much better place in which to put this power than in this Regulation, and it would also give the House a much better opportunity to discuss


whether it should be inserted in a statute or not.
The case is often made that this is inextricably connected with the call-up of agricultural workers, and there are many who take the view that so long as there is National Service that takes away a certain number of people from the farming community this Regulation is required, but that does not seem to me to be any argument at all for not inserting it into a statute. If there is to be permanent shortage of agricultural labour because of the call-up, and if there must be children available from season to season to assist the farmers, as some people think, then, in the same way as National Service is continued by statute, this power should be continued by statute. There does not seem to be any case for its continuance in the present form.
Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Home Secretary will agree to withdraw this Regulation, either because the Government will agree that it is no longer required, or because they will insert the provision in an Education Bill, so that we can have a proper debate on the pros and cons of the subject.

Mr. Gooch: I take the opportunity of reinforcing what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said under two headings; one, the ways of fixing the wage rates of farmworkers in Scotland, and the other, the very important question of the continued employment of schoolchildren on the land. I have never been a member of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, but I have been a member of the English Agricultural Wages Board, and I think that it is far better that a properly constituted body representing both employers and workers in the industry, plus independent members, should be allowed to do its work without interference from outside, and I think that it is an extremely dangerous move that we should allow a power to continue to operate by which someone else can fix lower rates for certain classes of workers.
6.0 a.m.
I know how this matter has been introduced. It was introduced first of all with a view to providing special rates for what are termed "learners." I came to this House in 1945 as a learner, but I was

paid the rate for the job, and I suggest that, in fixing the farmworkers' wage rates in Scotland, it should be left to the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board to come to a decision, without any interference at all. I think that a man who puts in his hours on the land in Scotland is worth not only the minimum paid by the Board, but a great deal more.
I am opposed to the employment of school children on the land, and I should like to see what I regard as an unfortunate piece of business taken out of the realms of possibility. I have been on deputations, representing the National Union of Teachers and farm workers, to the Minister of Education more than once to ask that the employment of children on farms should be ended. We have been given the hope that it may be possible to end it some time; but it is still being operated. Having stamped out the employment of children in other industries, it is time that we did the same in farming.
I speak with knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes because of my position as vice-chairman of the Norfolk Education Committee, and I regard it as a betrayal of the children that an education authority, at the dictate of some outside body, should seek to tell the children that they can stay away from school to work on farms. I have always said that the place of a child is at school, and that when it is not at school it should be at play.
They are only children once, and they will be brought up against the hard facts of life soon enough without being dragged from school for the purpose of providing cheap labour for certain farmers. I am not labelling all farmers alike. There are many farmers who would hesitate to take advantage of having children to work for them; but there are others, I am inclined to think—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not embark upon a general discussion of that.

Mr. Gooch: With respect, Sir, I was only endorsing what my hon. Friend said about child labour. I know that people see lovely pictures of children enjoying harvest time on farms; but they do not see them picking potatoes on cold mornings.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must relate his remarks to this Regulation.

Mr. Gooch: With great respect, I thought that this provided an opportunity for hon. Members to make some general remarks on the subject of the employment of children on the land.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Other hon. Members have related their remarks to this Regulation. Then it is in order; otherwise it is not in order.

Mr. Gooch: I hope that the Home Secretary will look at this matter again with a view to ending for ever the employment of school children on the land.

Mr. Nugent: I will reply to the debate on Regulations 29 and 30, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to the point on Scottish wages, and on the other Regulations.
I feel the same as hon. Members opposite regarding the necessity which continues for the employment of schoolchildren for potato picking in term time. For a good many years I took some part in the education committee of my own county, and anyone who is interested in education naturally deprecates the need to take children away from school for this purpose. However, we have to try to balance one need against another, and I feel quite sure that when my predecessors have looked at this human problem over the last 12 years or so, they have had to find a balance between the consideration of the welfare of the children, on the one hand, and the need to feed the community, on the other.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) said, the case lies entirely on the shortage of labour in the countryside. It grew out of a wartime need and that need is, unfortunately, no less today than it was in earlier years. In fact it has been steadily worsening since the peak years for agricultural labour of 1948 and 1949. Since then the agricultural labour force has been dropping steadily and it is impossible to ignore the fact that one of the main difficulties in getting the full potato acreage that we want today is the shortage of labour for potato harvesting.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Then why call up more?

Mr. Nugent: The need, therefore, that we have to face is some way of amplifying such adult labour force as now exists.

I fully sympathise with the educational point of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch). It is, however, overstating the position to say that this is a betrayal of the children by the Government, because he knows as well as I do that it is a common practice in many parts of the country to have what are called "potato holidays" during term time because children and their parents like to go potato picking. Many of the schools arrange a potato holiday in October as part of the holiday period so that the children can go potato picking.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They are poor children.

Mr. Gooch: Not in my constituency.

Mr. Nugent: I realise that it does not happen in Norfolk, but there are parts of the country where that happens. In fact it is worth recording in this connection that 30,000 acres of potatoes were picked last year in that way, and a valuable contribution that made to the feeding of the community.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Was that work done by university students?

Mr. Nugent: Evidently the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said there were potato holidays arranged—

Mr. George Isaacs: Does that apply to Eton and Harrow?

Mr. Nugent: —by secondary schools in order to give those who wish to do so, a chance to go potato picking.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not appear to me to be relevant to this Regulation.

Mr. Nugent: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I went a little astray, but I was dealing with some of the human problems raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would like to argue it with hon. Gentlemen because, if they pursue it they will find themselves in great difficulty.
To pursue the point of the Regulation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the position this year has been that 23,000 acres have been picked by children released from school during term time. That is a substantial reduction over the acreage picked last year in this way, when 35,000 acres were


picked. We have found that the potato acreage has dropped this year. It is down to 679,000 acres from 732,000 acres last year, and it is already reaching a level where we are bound to feel some anxiety at the Ministry about meeting the potato needs of the community.
May I remind the House of the procedure under which these Regulations work in practice? A circular is sent out by the Minister of Education asking if local education authorities will consider the scheme. A certain number, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, are unwilling to co-operate. It is left to their discretion, and so their independence is not interfered with.
If a local education authority does decide to make arrangements, it can. when it is satisfied that all other sources of labour supply have been fully used, authorise that the children be released for 10 half-days in term time; that is, children of 13 plus. If a very acute need arises, a further 10 half-days can be authorised by H.M. Inspectors, but that rarely happens, and it is normal practice for only the first 10 half-days to be used.
It is regrettable that our needs require even this, but I feel that 10 half-days is not such a desperately serious interference with the school work of the children concerned. It could not be justified unless we had such urgent problems in trying to feed the community.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how long the present circumstances are likely to last? He seems to regard this as a long-term policy. Can he say why the Government are unwilling to withdraw this Regulation and include it in the Education Bill so that it can be properly debated?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has touched upon that by asking for a satisfactory mechanical harvester. He knows that this presents something of exceptional technical difficulty. There are one or two harvesters on the market which are not too bad, but we have need of one which is completely satisfactory. When we get that, there is no doubt that the heavy demand for potato lifting services will be relieved. We hope that this may develop in the next year or two. A great deal of work

has been done on it. In general, this is one of our hopes, and the increasing acreage being picked in this way encourages me to think that this provision before us now will not be needed as a long-term measure. It would be a mistake for this, or any Government, to say that this is a long-term need.
But it is our duty, as it was the duty of our predecessors, to find some satisfactory solution to getting in the potato harvest without drawing on schoolchildren. I think the general trend of circumstances, and the hope for a better mechanical harvester, and other arrangements for getting labour, together with the decreasing acreage being picked by children, are all things which give ground for saying this should be continued as a temporary measure while hoping that it can be dispensed with before long.
Regulation 30 flows from Regulation 29, for if this arrangement is to be made, it is necessary to have additional latitude outside the scope of the 1933 Act, which gives local education authorities power to make bye-laws which limit the number of hours that a child can work during a week, the number of hours a child can work during a day, and the number of hours a child can work during a school day. Unless a provision of this kind were made, the present potato picking arrangements would be illegal.
6.15 a.m.
I submit that, however much we all dislike it from the point of view of the schooling and welfare of the children, this kind of interference is reduced to a minimum and every care is taken to see that children are not called upon unless they are very badly needed. I assure the hon. Member for Norfolk, North that his suggestion of the supply of cheap labour for farmers really does not hold water. Anyone who has ever employed children knows perfectly well that they would never employ them if they could manage by other means. The remark is not true, and I say to the hon. Member that he should consider that remark again.
I submit that the need is obviously still continuing, although to a decreasing extent, to call upon this help to get the harvest in. Therefore, these Regulations are justified, and I trust that the right hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): At this early hour I do not think the House would expect me to labour the Scottish point, but I feel that a reply is desirable and I should like to deal with the points raised in connection with Scotland.
This Regulation has been in existence since 1941 and when I became a member of the Government I wanted to know why it was being continued. I think the reasons have been found to be sound because of the peculiar position in Scotland arising largely from climate. That is what rules this Regulation. It is true that it gives the Secretary of State power to fix wage rates which are lower than the minimum. The reason is that workers taken on under our harvesting scheme in Scotland, who are the only workers who come under the Regulation, are inexperienced and not in the same class as the ordinary skilled agricultural worker. The Secretary of State has power to prescribe a lower wage rate for those workers, but the reason he does so as against what is done in England and Wales should be noted. That is where the question of our climate comes in.
In England and Wales minimum wage rates are fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board under the Agricultural Wages Act. In England and Wales there is no full-time guarantee of employment. In England and Wales the farmer pays for his workers according to the work done.

Mr. Gooch: Is it not a fact that there is a guaranteed week in agriculture in England and Wales?

Mr. Snadden: I am informed that in England and Wales there is not a guarantee of full-time employment for harvest workers. In Scotland, obviously when we are only working perhaps two days out of a week in a Scottish harvest and sometimes only a matter of hours, it would be a very heavy burden to place a full-time guarantee on the farmer. If we did not give that full-time guarantee of employment, we would not be able

to attract sufficient volunteers, and so the Secretary of State finances the scheme. The farmer pays for the work done and in a normal year the scheme supports itself, but in a bad or a broken harvest it is carried by the Department of Agriculture.

Agricultural workers and the National Farmers' Union are consulted on the wages paid. This scheme has worked extremely well throughout the years. The Secretary of State feels that, because of its success and the very great need in Scotland to attract sufficient volunteers for our harvesting, this is the best way of meeting the difficulty, as the money is carried by his own Department.

There is no trouble at all about the rate of wages. We have been able to secure an even flow of harvesters. There have been no difficulties whatever in that connection. I should like to emphasise that this scheme does not cover the recruitment of children for the potato harvest. The only people covered by this Regulation are volunteers recruited by the Secretary of State under the Scottish harvesting scheme. I hope that the House will be satisfied with that explanation.

Mr. G. Brown: I cannot advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to accept the replies as satisfactory. Neither hon. Gentleman has dealt with the point I made about this matter appearing in the Regulations. As we have discussed three Amendments at the same time, I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the third in protest against all three. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In line 32, leave out "and thirty."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 171.

Division No. 24.]
AYES
[6.25 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Astor, Hon. J. J.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Baldwin, A. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Banks, Col. C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Barber, Anthony
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John
Birch, Nigel


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Baxter, A. B.
Bishop, F. P.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Black, C. W.




Boothby, R. J. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, C.


Bossom, A. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Partridge, E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Braine, B. R.
Holt, A. F.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Peyton, J. W. W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Pitman, I. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Powell, J. Enoch


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hurd, A. R.
Profumo, J. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Raikes, H. V.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Campbell, Sir David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Carson, Hon. E.
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robertson, Sir David


Channon, H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roper, Sir Harold


Cole, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Colegate, W. A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lindsay, Martin
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Linstead, H. N.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cranborne, Viscount
Llewellyn, D. T.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Rt. Han. G. (King's Norton)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crouch, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Shepherd, William


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soames, Capt. C.


Deedes, W. F.
McAdden, S. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Major D.
Speir, R. M.


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Stevens, G. P.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Drewe, G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Storey, S.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Studholme, H. G.


Erroll, F. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, G. S.


Fell, A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Teeling, W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Fort, R.
Marples, A. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Tilney, John


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maude, Angus
Turner, H. F. L.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maudling, R.
Turton, R. H.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Godber, J. B.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mellor, Sir John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholls, Harmar
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Watkinson, H. A.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nutting, Anthony
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Odey, G. W.
Wills, G.


Heath, Edward
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.



Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Adams, Richard
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Albu, A. H.
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, L. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G.
Chapman, W. D.


Benson, G.
Bowden, H. W.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Beswick, F.
Brockway, A. F.
Collick, P. H.







Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Daines, P.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, William


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Royle, C.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, E. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Slater, J.


Deer, G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Snow, J. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sparks, J. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kenyon, C.
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ewart, R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Field, W. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fienburgh, W.
McLeavy, F.
Tomney, F.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Usborne, H. C.


Foot, M. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wallace, H. W.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mikardo, Ian
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morley, R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Wigg, George


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Nally, W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Willey, F. T.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylesden)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)




Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hargreaves, A.
Pannell, Charles
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, V. F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Popplewell, E.



Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holman, P.
Reeves, J.
Mr. Wilkins and


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The next Amendment selected is that in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). Does the hon. Member for Edge Hill wish to move it?

Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I wish to make a protest in the strongest possible terms—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Unless the hon. Member moves his Amendment, he cannot speak.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. Cannot we be told the reason for my hon. Friend not moving his Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment has not been moved. The hon. Member did not move it.

Mr. Irvine: I beg to move, in line 36, after "one," to insert "three."

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to give one or two reasons why I do so. The position seems to me to be that any woman of the most doubtful character can wear the uniform of women serving in the Army or the Royal Air Force and get away with it. The Act of 1948 does cover that particular loophole. I think that some explanation is required.

Mr. Irvine: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I do so with the keenest regret and only because the time for discussing this matter is so short—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and because a study of the Order Paper satisfies me that there are even more important matters for which time is required and which will have to be discussed later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Benn: I beg to move, to leave out lines 37 and 38.
It is very appropriate that at this time in the morning we should be dealing with burials, inquests and the registration of deaths. There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who feel that the whole night proceedings have become something of a farce. It is extremely difficult at this hour to discuss the various important matters raised by these Defence Regulations. It is also a little difficult to believe that hon. Members opposite are against delegated legislation, because to my knowledge not a single hon. Member opposite has contributed to this debate; though from the quality of their interjections we must be grateful that they have not sought to do so. The answers of the Ministers, in many cases, have been extremely unsatisfactory, and but for the self-denying ordinance of my hon. Friends we should not have had any sort of discussion of these various important matters.
The first question I wish to ask of the Minister is whether this Regulation is necessary at all? Very recently the House passed the Visiting Forces Act which, we were told, was intended to deal with all aspects of the relations between ourselves and our friends in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. So far as I can see there is nothing in the Regulation which is not covered by the Act.
Secondly, if under this Regulation an inquest is denied in the event of an American soldier being responsible for the death of a British subject, and if the next-of-kin of the British subject are denied the right of an inquest, what right of representation have they at the American court of inquiry? If a witness wishes to volunteer evidence about the circumstances of an accident is he able to go to the court of inquiry and give his evidence? Has the next-of-kin any right to call any other people, and in that event of there being any difficulty in getting representation at the inquiry, have the Government made any arrangements at all for helping these people to get their case put properly?
I should like to ask the Minister a question which we repeatedly asked during the debates on the Visiting Forces Act, and which is equally applicable

here. What reciprocity is made for British subjects who, in the course of military duty in the United States or elsewhere, find themselves responsible for the death of a citizen of the country in which they then are? Do the same arrangements obtain? Is an inquest not held in the United States in the event, say, of a member of a Military Mission in Washington knocking someone down with a car and killing him? We should like to be clear about the position, and I hope that we shall receive a satisfactory reply.

Mr. Hale: I beg to second the Amendment.
I deplore the fact that an important matter like this has to be discussed in a very few minutes. I am glad to see the Leader of the House listening to some of the discussion which he was responsible for arranging. It is well known to the few hon. Gentlemen opposite who take an interest in this matter that we discussed this point in the debates on the Visiting Forces Act. My recollection is that this point is covered by that Act, and that a procedure has been laid down which has taken the place of this Regulation which was passed during the war and which was drafted in a remarkable way.
I am assuming that the Regulation as printed in 1950 is still in force. Presumably, some parts of it at any rate are in force, although we do not know how much was repealed. By 1950 many paragraphs had been repealed as is shown in the note in italics on page 129 of the Regulations. It is not only laid down that a coroner must not hold an inquest on an American, but he must cancel one if it comes to his notice, even if a jury has been summoned, at any moment during the inquiry that an American is concerned.
It is a little surprising that we should pass this Regulation for one nationality and not for others. In the Visiting Forces Act we tried to cover that point. We get a fantastic position if a coroner is holding inquests on more than one person. But apparently even if one American is concerned the inquiry is to be abandoned. I recollect attending an inquest near Burton-on-Trent, and representing 91 deceased persons. That was a case where a whole section of the countryside had been blown up by the detonation of heavy


bombs. It might easily have been a case involving an American because it was a mixed air force station. What would have been the position there? Would we have had a decision on the other 90?
If, in an inquiry touching the death of a person other than a member of the American Forces, the coroner is satisfied, before the inquest is completed, that a member of the American Forces has been charged then the inquiry has to be adjourned. Apparently, if the man is charged by a police officer, and not before the court, and is released on bail, as would normally be the case, then this Regulation does not cover the position at all. What is the position with regard to the Visiting Forces Act? I have gone through the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations last Thursday, and I can find no record of any intention to amend this Regulation or to deal with it in any other way.
We are discussing this complex matter in terms of acute physical fatigue at a time when no sane person should be discussing matters of complexity and importance. We have to consider a whole series of documents at one and the same time; we have to check the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman last week; check to see what is in order; try to find out what is happening in another place; and all this has to be done by Members at this late hour, without secretarial help, on matters which need the assistance of a couple of chartered accountants and a ferret. This is a bad way of conducting our business. It is regrettable that on a thing of this kind we should only have time to make a few observations and then leave the whole matter in abeyance.

6.45 a.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the shortness of time, yet there is an hon. and learned Member talking in his sleep at the back of the Chamber and interfering with the proceedings. Should not something be done about that?

Mr. Speaker: The only hon. Member that I heard talking was the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and I did not think he was asleep.

Mr. Hale: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to say that

another hon. Member was talking in his own sleep, not in mine.
I was about to conclude when I was interrupted. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will clear this up by looking at the Visiting Forces Act, and that we need not continue these Regulations any longer.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I can come very near to the point that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has put to me, because the intention is that these Regulations shall be replaced by Section 7 of the Visiting Forces Act when it comes into force and is applied to the American Forces. I think that meets his point. They are being retained until that time, and, as I said last time, we shall always be considering getting rid of other Regulations.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) asked me three questions, and, in courtesy. I should like to try to reply. He asked me, first, why the Regulations are necessary. I think the answer I have just given to his hon. Friend covers that point. He asked me, secondly, what was the position if under these Regulations proceedings were not brought in American courts, and he wanted to know about the adjourning of the inquest. The important point to which I direct his attention is that the inquest is only adjourned when either a charge is brought against the American soldier or he is arrested for a charge to be brought. Those are the only circumstances under the Regulations in which the inquest will be adjourned, and the hon. Gentleman will see that under paragraph (6) I can direct that the inquest be resumed.
Thirdly, he asked me about reciprocity. If he looks at the previous debate he will see that we hope to see what the reciprocity will be when Congress meets in the new year. I have no further information than I gave the House on the last occasion. I think that answers the points raised, and I hope that with that the House will allow the Regulations to stand.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, to leave out lines 39 and 40.
I feel, with some of my hon. Friends who have spoken to other Amendments, that it is quite impossible to consider


adequately a matter of this sort in the conditions under which this debate is at present being conducted. It is well known that of all the branches of our law, that branch which relates to patents is one of the most complicated, and this Regulation makes the complication much greater than it otherwise would be. There are many points on which we might reasonably ask why a Regulation of this type, which perhaps more than any other that we have discussed during the night specifically relates to war-time purposes, is being continued in peace-time seven years after the end of the war in a form much wider than was considered necessary even during the war.
I do not think it is possible, as I have said, in the circumstances in which this debate is taking place, to go into complicated matters of this nature. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Someone asks me why not. As I understand the observations recently made upon the general subject of this debate by the Leader of the House, the framework within which the debate is being conducted is the principle which he laid down, that the major object of our discussion should not be to elucidate the matters under discussion but to ensure that the Government get their business—an attitude which the late Mr. Adolf Hitler adopted towards his Parliament, the Reichstag.
I, for one, do not propose to try to bring to bear, in those conditions, the not inconsiderable researches which, if I may say so, I have made into this matter, and if you will allow me, Sir, once this Amendment has been seconded, to put my present remarks in order, I shall seek your permission to withdraw it.

Mr. Bottomley: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to join in the protest at the way in which the House is being treated.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Where is the Leader of the House?

Mr. Bottomley: A little while ago we had a very important discussion, when we protested against the absence of the Minister of Transport. Now we have one of the most important of the Regulations. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is to deal with the debate on it or not. He has been dealing with most of

the Regulations tonight, and carrying a very heavy load indeed. I was encouraged, when the Leader of the House—or should I say the "misLeader?"—came in a few moments ago, into thinking that he would deal with this matter.
We ought to have the President of the Board of Trade here. I know he is not well, but in his absence, another senior Minister should give us the Government's views. We need to have a full explanation before we can clearly say what we are going to do about this Regulation. Therefore, I shall reserve my attitude to challenge still further this Regulation if there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the Government.

Mr. Mikardo: For the reasons I have already given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, to leave out line 41.
We now come to food Regulations, which are very important. In view of the wholly preposterous attitude of the Leader of the House I shall not be able to speak at such length as the subject demands, but I have another reason for being brief. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food looking very pale and wan—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): Oh.

Mr. Willey: I realise that he ought not to delay his departure, because he is due to visit my constituency, and I do not think that anything would do us more good politically than such a visit by him, and I am very anxious that he should keep that appointment.
This present Regulation was considered of such importance in 1943 that a White Paper was issued in November, 1943, to try to explain why it should be necessary. The Government then said that these Regulations were necessary because the national diet then was only sufficient to maintain health. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have debated food questions for a considerable time, and I am sure he will agree that that is a fair summary of the case regarding the food situation today in this country. If the Regulations were justified on that ground then they would be equally justified today.
But these Regulations make considerable alteration in the substance of the law. They make the display of a label which falsely describes food exposed for sale an offence, whereas previously, under the Food and Drugs Act, a sale had to be made before an offence was committed. They also make a change regarding advertisements. Whereas, under the Food and Drugs Act, it was an offence to give a label or to publish an advertisement falsely describing or otherwise calculated to mislead in regard to the nature, substance, or quality of the food, the Regulations make it an offence to issue a label or publish an advertisement which misleads with regard to the nutritional or dietary value of the food. That is a substantial alteration of the law as it now stands. The Regulations also make it an offence to label or publish an advertisement making false claims regarding the vitamin or mineral content of food.
Over and above this, these Regulations make the Ministry an enforcing authority. That introduces into the law regarding food and drugs a new principle. They also make the Ministry of Food a consenting authority. These changes may be desirable. They may be an improvement of the law. The Regulations themselves, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will concede, are open to some objection. Experience has shown that they are open to difficulty as far as construction is concerned. They carry forward powers necessary during the war which may be challenged now.
Why is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that we should continue these Regulations, because he knows that the whole of this matter has been discussed with the local authorities and the other authorities affected? He knows that a clean food Bill has been prepared which would be non-contentious, and that there is no reason or justification for continuing these Regulations.
What he ought to have done, and could have done 12 months ago, was to bring before the House amending legislation. It would be a good thing for this present Session if, instead of continuing the Regulations and using them as a pretext for altering statutory law, he took advantage of the discussions held with all the authorities concerned and laid before the House a clean food Bill. That would

be far more useful than some of the legislation the Government are proposing.
We are entitled to be told why the Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministry should lazily depend on these Defence Regulations when his own party, or the party to which he clings, have time after time professed that if they had the opportunity they would dispense with the Regulations. Here is a case in which they could do so. It is intolerable that this good preparatory work should be wasted because of the indifference of the present Minister.

7.0 a.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to second the Amendment.
These Regulations give power to the Minister and local authorities to help in trying to ensure that food offered for sale to the public shall be wholesome. They are to prevent the public from being misled about the nature, substance and quality of food. We believe that these powers ought to be retained, and that they ought not to be retained in Regulations, but should be incorporated in a Bill supplementing the Food and Drugs Acts. In other words, we are of the opinion that these powers should be embodied in permanent law.
This is no unreasonable request. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there is a Bill ready for this purpose. The Bill is in a pigeon-hole in the Ministry of Food and we on this side of the House await with growing impatience its presentation to Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary is, I suggest, well qualified to deliver that Bill. I should like to give a brief account of its conception and of its abnormally long gestation in support of our contention that the acceptance of this Amendment, and the substitution for these Regulations of proper permanent legislation, would be no hardship for the Government and would in no way give them embarrassment.
In February of last year I moved a Motion in the House drawing attention to the problem of providing clean, wholesome food. Many interesting speeches were made by hon. Members on all sides of the House during the debate and, on its termination, the Motion was carried without a Division. There was no difference of opinion amongst hon. Members.
A few days before that debate we had received the report of the Working Party on Catering Establishments and found it a most interesting document, containing valuable suggestions for legislation. Shortly after that, a matter of days, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) spoke on an Adjournment debate calling attention to the chemical adulteration of food, and at about the same time a noble Lord in another place initiated a debate on the same subject.
As the result of the report of the Working Party on Catering Establishments and those debates, the Ministry of Food set to work, under the Labour Government, to prepare legislation to improve the quality of food by restricting chemical adulteration, to raise the standard of hygiene in food handling, and to give attention to the embodiment of all the measures contained in these Regulations.
The preparatory work for that legislation took time, for co-operation had to be sought of local authorities, the catering trade and food manufacturers. That preparatory work was continued by the Tory Government when they came into power, and we have conclusive evidence that the Bill is ready for presentation to Parliament. Last week, on 19th November, in answer to a Question of mine about whether the Minister of Food would introduce this Bill, the Minister of Food replied:
I hope to do so as soon as Parliamentary business permits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1856.]
There was a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, Central, who asked if the Bill also included reference to the possible addition of suspected chemicals to food, and the Minister replied:
Yes, I think every aspect will be considered. In fact, all the preparatory work has already been done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1856.]
We know that this Government are in a muddle over their Transport Bill and Iron and Steel Bill, but the Government cannot devote all their available Parliamentary time to those two measures. Other legislation has to be brought before the House, and this Bill relating to food could be introduced. It should have been brought in before now.
In answer to innumerable questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, Central, and myself, we have learned that the Minister of Food, and his Parliamentary Secretary, and the Minister of Health, are all interested in this matter. No party politics enter into the matters contained in the promised Bill, and there is no reason why it should not be given a second reading here and then sent upstairs to a Standing Committee.
The public is interested; a campaign has been waged by sections of the Press; the Central Council for Health Education, Clean Food Guilds, and St. John Ambulance Association have all helped, and there have been efforts by some catering establishments wishing to establish or maintain reputations for serving clean and wholesome food. The time is ripe for this new Bill dealing with this most important matter. The Bill is ready. Why cannot we have it?

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Because of six years of Socialism.

Dr. Broughton: The Government have been in office for a little more than a year, and are guilty of neglecting the public welfare. Their policy seems to be one of dilly-dally and drift, interrupted by convulsive moments of destructive legislation such as the two de-nationalisation Measures before the House.
I ask hon. Members to support this Amendment so as to force the Minister of Food to bring legislation forward to implement the Food and Drugs Act, to see that our food is clean, to keep a watch on chemical processing, and to cover all the other matters with which some of us are so concerned in the public interest.

Sir Ian Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to get such a Bill, why do not his hon. Friends introduce it later today, instead of the stupid Measure they propose to bring in?

Mr. Frederic Harris: I will detain the House for only a few moments, and, at the outset, would like to declare an interest as I am connected with a company concerned with food production and which would be affected by these Regulations.
The point I wish to raise is that, in these Regulations, there is considerable


unfairness in that if a manufacturer—and this would not apply to the company with which I am connected—makes a genuine mistake on the label of a foodstuff, he can subsequently be summoned in every local authority's area throughout the country for that same mistake. That is, in the area of every local authority where the food was on sale. When one produces a range of goods and a mistake occurs and the goods are distributed throughout the country it has always appeared extremely unfair that 50 or 60 summonses can be taken against the manufacturer for the same offence by every authority throughout the land.
I appeal to the Minister that when the Bill to which reference has been made is considered that that point may be borne in mind. It seems extremely unfair that manufacturers should be summoned, as has happened on many occasions, many times for what is one offence because distribution of food has been made throughout the country. That could be overcome by seeing that the Ministry of Food are able to be appealed to on a matter like that and they could take the issue up with the local authorities and regulate the number of summonses issued for one offence.

Dr. Stross: The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) asked why the Labour Government had not produced this legislation—

Sir I. Fraser: I asked why, if a clean food Bill is so important, it was not put down for 11 o'clock today instead of the silly Bill which has been put down.

Dr. Stross: I thought the hon. Member was asking a sensible question, but as it is a foolish one, I will not answer it.
The Regulation refers, in paragraph (b), to:
prohibiting or restricting the addition of any substance to, and regulating generally the composition of, any food.
Many Orders have been made on this matter and are listed among the Statutory Instruments. They fall into three parts. The first prescribe standards for particular foods, the second restrict the presence of substances in food generally and the third concern labelling.
I want to speak on the second group, Orders restricting the presence of substances in food. This reminds me that

in Section (1) of the original Act of 1938 the first words are:
No person shall add or direct or permit any other person to add any substance to any food so as to render the food injurious to health.
I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this part of our debate tonight. It has been apparent to right hon. and hon. Members for a long time that clean food is desirable and essential for safety if health measures are seriously contemplated, but it is not always so easy to impress upon people that we live not only in a changing environment but we have reached a stage in our scientific researches and knowledge when we change our environment ourselves. When human beings change their environment through their own knowledge, and do not adapt themselves to those changes, very serious problems are inherent in the situation.
7.15 a.m.
We have had only two Orders restricting the presence of substances in food in all these years, and my criticism is that the Fluorine in Food Order, 1947, and the Mineral Oil in Food Order, 1949, made to protect the public against the addition of substances upon which research has now advanced very far, and upon which opinions are now crystallising clearly, do not provide a satisfactory method of approach.
Fluorine is said to exist in sea water and in the enamel of our teeth. We have forbidden it in food under the Order I have mentioned. It may be open to argument whether that was the right thing to do, because in America there is great agitation about adding it to water supplies. Certainly, it is being used for dental treatment.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary does not believe that I want fluorine added to our water supplies or to our food. There is an adequate amount of the normal fluorine existing in the wheat berry, and if more people had bread which was not so denuded of this there would be no need for so much discussion about dental caries and the need for more dentists.
Mineral oil in food has been forbidden by the Order, except that 1 per cent. of mineral oil is allowed to be used in dried fruits—prunes, raisins and sultanas. There is a very good reason for


that. Although we had been using mineral oil in food for many years until it was forbidden in this way, in 1949, we know now that excessive amounts—or even small amounts regularly taken—cause an absorption by the oil of vitamins A, B and K and also interfere with the normal use in the body's metabolism of calcium and phosphorus.
Obviously, the old method of using mineral oils as a substitute for fats was dangerous. It is most satisfactory that that has been stopped, but I believe it is still used for the greasing of baking tins used for the making of bread, to prevent the bread sticking to the tins. If that is so, it is an undesirable practice. If something is bad it should, if possible, be forbidden completely.
It is my complaint that the powers inherent in these Orders have not been sufficiently extensively used to give adequate protection to the public. I am sure that I carry the Parliamentary Secretary with me in that. His background is similar to that of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). Those of us who have been medically trained cannot help but regret the somewhat dense and foolish attitude of some people, whether members of the Cabinet or not—I am speaking specifically now of the Members of the Cabinet—who cannot realise the importance of safety measures as we more easily do.
It is deplorable that those who are in such high positions cannot listen to advice given by their own colleagues, because modern research has shown that there are many and grave dangers inherent in the addition of some of these chemical substances to our food. We have heard from my hon. Friends that a Food and Drugs Bill was prepared by the previous Government. I think it is an open secret that if the present Government had not succeeded in coming into office, this Bill would have been presented in the Gracious Speech over a year ago. Twice now the present Government have had their opportunity; twice they have neglected to take it. That is why we think it deplorable that we still have these Regulations foisted upon us.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees that the present practice is this: that it is legally possible,

not only here but in the United States, to add chemicals to food, or use chemicals for the preservation of food, which, ultimately, have been shown to be harmful. We have powers to take immediate action if substances are known to be dangerous, but the difficulty is that it takes a very long time, in some cases, before we realise what dangers are faced.
Take, for example, the case of dulcin, a sweetening agent used for about 50 years. There is no provision I know of which forbids it. I was told a year ago, when I asked a Parliamentary Question, that it was no longer being used. Soon after I received a label from a Surrey grocer describing a tomato ketchup and showing that it was sweetened by dulcin. A proportion of 0.1 per cent. of dulcin added to the diet of animals causes tumour of the liver. Tumours of the liver—hepatomas—are very rare in this country and Western Europe, but are very common in the tropics and sub-tropics, probably because the protein diet is very low. But if it is found that small, regular amounts of a substance added to the diet of animals cause tumour of the liver we ought to guarantee that such substances do not continue to be used when science has formed its conclusions. I hope that we shall be told that it is forbidden now. If it is, how? By arrangement or agreement? I see nothing that forbids it.
What I am saying is true of drugs as well as foods. We use drugs year in, year out, thinking they are useful—perhaps sure they are useful. Then, after many years' use, we find that a complication arises. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that we used resorcinol for skin ailments for years and then found that it tends to cause enlargement of the thyroid gland and a distressing disease called myxoedema. Now, we do not use it. When one tests out these substances on animals biologically, for a year, two years, or three years, and one gets a clear bill, one still has not a guarantee that they will not ultimately prove harmful to human beings.
When I was a student I remember being told that badgers are quite fond of prussic acid, and it seems quite certain that rabbits enjoy feeding on beds of belladonna.

Miss Jennie Lee: Hear, hear.

Dr. Stross: I am glad to see that I am receiving a good deal of approbation and agreement from someone much more experienced than I am myself.
Whose responsibility is it today to watch over the public health? There has been a change of function, and today we address ourselves to the Ministry of Food, because it is their responsibility. It used to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. I am going to make an accusation now, not against the Parliamentary Secretary, but against the Ministry itself, and, in doing so, I will find the excuse for them. Because of their historical background they naturally feel that their function is primarily to see that food is well preserved and is kept reasonably clean, although we all know that it is not always as clean as it should be. But there is a secondary obligation upon the Ministry now, inasmuch as it came from the Ministry of Health, to see that the food we are given has not been tampered with and does not contain hidden dangers to public health.
Palatability and quantity are not enough now, for the reasons I have given. Perhaps I could give this example, because I feel that the Ministry of Food may fall down on their watch on this matter. On Wednesday, 29th October, I put down two Questions which were answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. Both were connected with suspected substances which, I thought, might be used in food. One of these concerned compounds of polyoxyethylene—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, that is pretty good for this time in the morning. I asked him what action he was taking to stop these compounds being used, and he said that no action was required at present.
I also asked him whether his attention had been drawn to the use in bread-making of substances not found in human or animal bodies, and I gave the names of substances such as penta-erythritol derivatives of fatty acids or cellulose derivatives such as carboxymethyl cellulose, and what steps he was taking to discourage their use. The Parliamentary Secretary said that these compounds were not permitted in national bread, that he was advised they were not used in bread-

making in this country, and that the second part of the Question therefore did not arise. No one can expect a Minister to be conversant with every aspect of every subject, but I am asking him now—and I give him notice of this—to look at pages 110 and 111 of the Report of the Medical Officer of Health for 1950, where he will find a description of toxic substances used and the dangers inherent in them.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to give the House his opinion whether the warning of the dangers I have described is not supported by the researches of the Medical Research Council, and I ask whether his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health would not have agreed with me as far as this—that we need to take great care with these substances, to continue our research and to be suspicious of using them because these substances are not natural bodies.
I am most concerned that the Leader of the House is not here, because, for a short time, he was Minister of Health, and it may well have been that, with his agile mind and incredible sagacity, he would have come to know all about these things in the few weeks in which he was at the Ministry of Health, and, today, could give us an assurance, because of his special knowledge, that he was making certain that the Bill for which we are all asking will be introduced into the House. However, he is not here, so I cannot ask him.
7.30 a.m.
If I wanted to offer some further evidence I would say that it is a well-known and established fact, and everyone agrees, that the substances I am describing, namely, the fatty acids combined with polyoxyethylene—[Laughter.] Hon. Members will note there is no harm in the fatty acid part; it is the unnatural substances not found in nature to which I am referring. When these fats are fed experimentally to animals—[Laughter.] I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite find that my description of the dangers they run, and ill-health that they and their familiies may have to suffer, is so amusing.
I was saying that when these substances are fed to hamsters which are queer little rodents, to the extent of 5 per cent. of their diet they caused death to some, while in others growth was stunted.


And this is the part that will be interesting to hon. Members on both sides of the House who suffer from peptic ulcers. It causes erosion of the mucous membrane of the walls of the intestine and the stomach—[Interruption.] I know of no body of people in the country more addicted to alimentary disturbances than right hon. and hon. Members of this House, and I make no apology for speaking quite forcibly on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I am now receiving more cheers and a little less laughter.
I wish to conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, go on."]—by asking these questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. First of all, as I said earlier, will he tell us whether dulcin is forbidden. This sweetening agent is thoroughly dangerous.
Second, are the azo dyes forbidden as colouring agents, including butter yellow, which also causes cancer in animals? Third, how much natural fat has been replaced in our diet by the use of these artificial substances? In the United States the pre-war average use of natural fat was 4 per cent. in bread and rolls. It has fallen to 2 per cent. now and the population is thus deprived each year of 160,000,000 lb. of natural fat.
It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to answer these questions—

Sir I. Fraser: He will make up an answer if he does not know.

Dr. Stross: Is the Parliamentary Secretary conversant with the real danger that we are facing in drinking milk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—where D.D.T. is extensively used on the silage that the cows eat, or about the cow sheds? Is he conversant with the fact that in the United States at least, operations have shown the presence of D.D.T. in human fat? Does not he think that this is a serious matter and that someone should take note of it? Lastly, what research is being conducted into the problem associated with the absorbtion in human beings of organic phosphorous insecticides which we know are absorbed by plants which are sprayed with these substances? The Parliamentary Secretary must know that the smallest amount is deadly.
We have been told that this is not a party matter, and it should not be. A Bill to replace these Regulations could quite easily go upstairs. What have the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister been doing all this long year to persuade their more ignorant colleagues of the great necessity to bring this type of Bill forward as soon as possible.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: To clarify the debate will my right hon. Friend be good enough to give us the chemical formulae of the two dangerous bodies he has described?

Dr. Stross: In view of the fact that I have been wrongly addressed I shall require notice of that question.

Dr. Hill: Before dealing with the important points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Stross), may I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), who thought there was a danger of a large number of prosecutions in the case of national products by the different local authorities administering the food and drugs legislation. I would draw his attention to the fact that under paragraph 5 of the Regulations the Minister is empowered to prosecute, and the purpose of that was that where a national product was involved a single prosecution could take place rather than the hundreds which he contemplated.
The Member for Sunderland, North summarised the changes in the law which these Regulations make. The House will appreciate that they are, in effect, a rewriting of Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, dealing with the subject of labelling and extending the subject to include advertising. I think it will be generally agreed that whatever may have been the war-time motive for some of these changes, however they may have been designed to deal with the phase of the great growth of substitutes, they are, in the main, a substantial extension and improvement of food and drugs legislation.
The re-definition of food extending the legal provision to cover nutritional claims, dealing with false claims for vitamin content, extending the provisions to make for uniformity in Scotland and Northern Ireland—in these ways and others improvements have been effected in food


and drugs legislation by this re-writing of Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act. The effect of this Amendment is, of course, to bring to an end these improvements. The hon. Gentleman made plain, of course, that he was seeking not to bring to an end such improvements as had followed these Regulations, but to hasten the new Bill which my right hon. and gallant Friend has stated has been prepared, and which he has said he hopes will be introduced, subject to the exigencies of Parliamentary business.
I did not entirely follow the whole of the pharmacological viva voce examination of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). I do not propose to follow him throughout the whole of his discourse, nor seek to answer all his questions, but, in all seriousness, I would say that when such experts as himself seek to draw attention to undoubted dangers in the adulteration of and addition to food there is a danger that the effect will be exaggerated unnecessarily. People may be led to believe the dangers are very much greater than they really are.

Dr. Stross: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree, however, with this, that there is scarcely a single thing I said tonight that has not been said by men who know more about it than any of us here, including Sir Edward Mellanby, one of the greatest authorities in the world? If he and his like can say so, why cannot it be said here on the Floor of the House of Commons, for the protection of our people?

Dr. Hill: I was seeking to introduce a sense of proportion in case fears are unduly aroused, not to qualify or modify the statement as to the existence of danger.
The hon. Gentleman has made clear that these Regulations made possible a beginning in dealing with the problem of dangers following addition of chemicals to food. He drew attention to two Orders, and although he was sceptical about one, the Fluorine Order, he clearly saw considerable advantages in the Minerals in Food Order. In addition, by voluntary agreement it has been possible to discontinue the use of other substances of which the hon. Gentleman gave an example.
Pending what will be a quite difficult advance in legislation in this field—I say difficult because it has to deal with the

addition of chemicals not yet proven to cause disease; chemicals about which some doubt exists, a doubt that could only be resolved after a long time, and, indeed, after some damage has been done—pending the introduction of any new legislation on food and drugs it would be a tragedy to remove such power as now exists to deal with such cases as have been proven, as instanced by the two already dealt with.
I suspect that those who spoke in support of the hon. Gentleman do not really wish to see these advantages brought to an end, but wish the greater advantage of up-to-date legislation embodying much of what is contained in the Regulations. [HON MEMBERS: "When?"] My answer on that is, as it must be, that there is and can be no definite promise as to the date of the introduction of any such legislation. It is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The issue before the House therefore becomes this: Will it sweep away these advances that have been made under a number of headings? Will it return to the 1938 position? Will it bring to an end such advance as has already been made in dealing with the chemical danger? Will it bring it to an end in the interval between this moment and the introduction of any new legislation when that becomes possible? I want to reassure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that we are alive to the new danger to which he referred—alive, indeed, in spite of it. It can be said that a vigorous effort will be made to cope with this new and difficult problem.
When I said just now that it would be a mistake to get this out of proportion, what I had in mind was the reciting of a list of substances which may, under certain circumstances, prove a danger to health. Their dangers have not, as yet, been proved in every case. But there is a fear that the many people who tend to take an introspective delight in their own and other people's illnesses will find their alarms aggravated by such statements. So the position is that there can be no promise as to when the new legislation is to be introduced. Therefore, the House, if it decided to bring to an end these Regulations, would take us back to the pre-war position and lose much of the advance of recent years.

7.45 a.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I desire to refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. He said that this Regulation continues, in substance, Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. That, of course, is true, but he forgets to add that in paragraph 3 of the Regulations there are very considerable powers with regard to entry and inspection and the taking of samples by officials of the Ministry of Food.
I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman that in Section 77 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, powers are given which are very different in substance, as far as entry is concerned, from the powers given in this Regulation. Under Section 77, if one desired to enter a private house, 24 hours' notice had to be given; if one wanted to obtain a warrant from a justice with regard to entry, certain proceedings had to be taken; third, by Subsection (3) of the Section a person who entered premises had to make sure on leaving them, if they were unoccupied, that they were effectively secured against trespassers.
I only point out that now, under this Regulation, people are faced with a host of officials with arbitrary powers, and that there is no reason, in my submission, why that Regulation should remain and the limited powers given in that Section 77 should not be applied in this case. I always thought that the Government side put forward as their creed, "Set the people free. Remove controls." Here we have a power which they are continuing, and I suggest that they should remove it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Willey: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pay attention to the points of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I think it is quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary will do whatever he can to get a clean food Bill before the House. I was optimistic about that until he mentioned the Leader of the House. Then I knew that our chances of getting this desirable legislation before us would be very dim indeed, through muddle if not through ill-will.
Let me take this occasion of hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will

enjoy his visit to my constituency. However offensive to my constituents may be his political views, they will afford him that hospitality for which they are well-known. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.

SCHEDULE

Defence (General) Regulations, 1939

Regulation two BA (Control of explosives).
Regulation sixteen (Stopping up or diversion of highways for purposes of open-cast coal).
Regulation thirty-three (Exemption of certain women from Acts relating to mid-wives).
Regulation forty-five A (Issue of identity cards to seamen).
Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces).
Regulation sixty C (Amendment of s. 4 of Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926).
Regulation seventy-six (Handling and conveyance of ammunition, &amp;c., in ports).
Regulation eighty-two (False documents and false statements).
Regulation eighty-three (Obstruction).
Regulation eighty-four (Restrictions on disclosing information).
Regulation eighty-five (Entry upon, and inspection of, land).
Regulation eighty-seven (Permits, licences, &amp;c.).
Regulation eighty-eight (Fees for permits, licences, &amp;c.).
Regulation eighty-nine (Use of force in entering premises).
Regulations ninety to ninety-three and ninety-five to one hundred and five (which contain general, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).
The Third Schedule (Manner of instituting proceedings).

Other Defence Regulations

Regulations seventeen E and twenty of the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940.
Parts I, II and III, Regulations twenty-five A, twenty-six, twenty-eight A, twenty-nine and thirty, and Schedules I, II and VI of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.
Parts I and II and Schedule I of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1940.


Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.
Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.
Regulations one and two and paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.
The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
The Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, 1940 except Regulations eight and nine thereof.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

7.49 a.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the enactments specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.

SCHEDULE.

Subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, relating to wheat and land drainage).

Section six of the said Act of 1946 (which extends the Sugar Industry Act, 1942).

Section nine of the said Act of 1946 (which extends certain emergency enactments relating to legal powers).

The procedure involved is the same as in the case of the other Motion. The powers in question in this case are those embodied in the emergency enactments kept in being by Sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. I do not think that anyone would want me to go through them in any detail. I remind the House that they cover marketing of wheat; land drainage; the beet sugar industry; the administration of oaths and the taking of affidavits by officers of the Armed Forces; and the defraying out of capital of the management expenses of settled land.

It is proposed in this case also that the powers be continued for a further year, except that those relating to the taking of affidavits and settled land will be replaced by provisions in the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is now before another place.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."
We have had a pleasant night together. I am sure that everyone will agree with that, although during the last half-hour I have wondered how I managed to survive my first year, as I listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and learned of the perils which beset me and which, I understand, have grown more during my lifetime than I had realised. In spite of the doctors we manage to live.
I think my hon. Friends will agree that throughout the night we have had a series of courteous replies from the Home Secretary, who seems to have to fill everybody's post in rotation. If he is in office many more months, his knowledge will be so encyclopaedic that he could retire from the Government and obtain a professorship in some university. I recall that a former Minister of Health became Master of Magdalen, which in my younger days would have been regarded as one of the great rewards of a scholastic life.
Throughout the night, so far as I know, no angry word has been spoken on either side, which is remarkable when one considers the provocation we generally give one another in these cases. We have done a good night's work. My right hon. Friends and hon. Friends from time to time have withdrawn or not moved Amendments, in a general desire to meet everyone's convenience. I hope that the Leader of the House will feel now, having 40 hon. Members behind him and being quite safe, that we can call it a couple of days and go to our couches for a little rest. I have to attend a meeting of the Finance Committee of the British Museum at 11 o'clock. That is a mathematical and linguistic encounter which I can assure you is a heavy strain. I hope the Leader of the House will have compassion on me, if on no one else.

Mr. Crookshank: I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the debate which has lasted a long time has been admirably good-tempered. I do not recall having heard of an all-night sitting having gone so smoothly. Even at this hour, a time when there is apt to be uproar, we have had calm waters. Perhaps it was anticipation of his visit to the British Museum which has kept the right hon. Gentleman down. I hope he enjoys his morning there. I should like


to express gratitude to hon. Members in all parts of the House for the way they have treated this debate.
We have made good progress, as I had hoped we might. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have certainly not obstructed this debate in any way; they have facilitated it, as he pointed out. There were Amendments on the Paper which were not moved—I would not know what prompted that—but the fact that they were not moved has helped business along, business which, as I have said before, is urgently needed. I think, too, that my own hon. Friends have helped—

Mr. Bing: Yes, by not doing anything they promised to do at the time of the Election.

Mr. Crookshank: —shall I say, by their lack of loquacity? There is not much more in connection with these Regulations on our Order Paper, and if the present good temper of the House continues, we might well finish them and the other business within a short time.

Hon. Members: Shame!

Mr. Bing: Shocking.

Mr. Crookshank: I hope the good temper is not going to disappear at this stage. I hope the House will carry on for the time necessary to do that which I think need not take long now if the same accommodating spirit as has been shown hitherto continues. I hope, therefore, that this is what will happen and that, in order to help that along, the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press this Motion any further.

Mr. Ede: By leave of the House, of course we shall discuss some of these matters on another day in the near future, when we shall express without any restraint on our feelings for truth and honesty exactly what we think about the way in which the business of the House has been debated during the past 48 hours. I am disappointed with the response I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to show their feeling that we might have been met a little more generously by going into the Division Lobby.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 246.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[7.55 a.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Adams, Richard
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, W. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hannan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Deer, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Delargy, H. J.
Hargreaves, A.


Baird, J.
Dodds, N. N.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hastings, S.


Benn, Wedgwood
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)


Benson, G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Beswick, F.
Edelman, M.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphily)
Hobson, C. R.


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holt, A. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowles, F. G.
Ewart, R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Field, W. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Follick, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Callaghan, L. J.
Foot, M. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Champion, A. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gooch, E. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Coldrick, W.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Grey, C. F.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kenyon, C.


Daines, P.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
King, Dr. H. M.




Kinley, J.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Poole, C. C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lewis, Arthur
Reeves, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lindgren, G. S.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Tomney, F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Usborne, H. C.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wallace, H. W.


McLeavy, F.
Ross, William
Watkins, T. E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Royle, C.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Weitzman, D.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.
West, D. G.


Mellish, R. J.
Short, E. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mikardo, Ian
Shurmer, P. L. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Monslow, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wigg, George


Moody, A. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Slater, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morley, R.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, F. T.


Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams,, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Nally, W.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilson, Rt. Harold (Huyton)


O'Brien, T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Oliver, G. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Orbach, M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Padley, W. E.
Swingler, S. T.
Yates, V. F.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Sylvester, G. O.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pearson, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Cole, Norman
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Colegate, W. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Alport, C. J. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Edward


Arbuthnot, John
Cranborne, Viscount
Higgs, J. M. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Astor, Hon J. J.
Crouch, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hollis, M. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Barber, A. P. L.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Baxter, A. B.
Deedes, W. F.
Horobin, I. M.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Donner, P. W.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Birch, Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bishop, F. P.
Erroll, F. J.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Black, C. W.
Fell, A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Finlay, Graeme
Kaberry, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Braine, B. R.
Fort, R.
Law, Rt Hon. R. K.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Foster, John
Leather, E. H. C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lindsay, Martin


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gammans, L. D.
Linstead, H. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bullard, D. G.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Butcher, H. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Low, A. R. W.


Campbell, Sir David
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McAdden, S. J.


Channon, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McCallum, Major D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)







Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


McKibbin, A. J.
Osborne, C.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Partridge, E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Storey, S.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Summers, G. S.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Profumo, J. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. (Croydon, W.)


Marples, A. E.
Raikes, H. V.
Tilney, John


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Redmayne, M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maude, Angus
Remnant, Hon. P.
Turton, R. H.


Maudling, R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Robertson, Sir David
Vosper, D. F.


Mellor, Sir John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Molson, A. H. E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Roper, Sir Harold
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Hon George (Worcester)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicholls, Harmar
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Watkinson, H. A.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.
Williams, Rt. Hon Charles (Torquay)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nutting, Anthony
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Oakshott, H. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Odey, G. W.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wills, G.


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Soames, Capt. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Speir, R. M.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studbolme.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Bing: I only want to say that it is absolutely scandalous to take this Motion at this hour of the morning. It is perfectly justifiable to say that hon. Members opposite, every one of them, were elected on a pledge that they were going into these Orders and Regulations in great detail. I hope that my hon. Friends will not take part in this Parliamentary farce any longer, because it is absolutely ridiculous and disgraceful. It is a disgrace that the Leader of the House does not even bother to be here. He just bobs and bows and away he goes. That is not the way to lead this House. I hope that my hon. Friends will join in some sort of protest against this disgraceful display.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emer-

gency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the enactments specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.

SCHEDULE

Subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, relating to wheat and land drainage).

Section six of the said Act of 1946 (which extends the Sugar Industry Act, 1942).

Section nine of the said Act of 1946 (which extends certain emergency enactments relating to legal powers).

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — PATENTS

8.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section forty-nine of the Patents Act, 1949, praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November.
I think I ought to give the House a short explanation of this Motion. The object is to extend the powers of Government Departments in relation to patents under the Patents Act, 1949, for one further year. These powers have been extended each year since 1949 and were extended before 1949 annually under Emergency Laws procedure. Our object in seeking their extension now is to expedite exports, particularly of aircraft. For some months we have been engaged in seeking to find a method of meeting the problem, which is a very real problem, that would not involve annual extension of the Emergency Order. We have not yet found a satisfactory method. Therefore, we ask the House to approve this Motion.

REGISTERED DESIGNS

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act, 1949, praying that the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th November.—[Mr. Low.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NEW VALUATION LISTS (POSTPONEMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO POSTPONE COMING INTO FORCE OF NEW VALUATION LISTS.)

8.12 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after "order," to insert:
being not later than the year nineteen hundred and fifty-four in the case of valuations other than valuations of dwelling houses under the provisions of Part IV of the said Act, and not later than the year nineteen hundred and fifty-five in the case of valuations of dwelling houses under the provisions of Part IV of the said Act.
This Amendment seeks to place a time limit upon the powers of the Minister in postponing further the delivery of the new valuation lists. Clause I proposes to give the Minister unlimited power of postponement over the delivery of the new valuation lists. The Act of 1948 prescribed 1952 as the year during which the new lists should be delivered, but there was provision there for postponement for a year until 1953 if the Minister made an order to that effect.
Under the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Order of 1951, the date for delivery was postponed until 1953. This Clause seeks to give the Minister power further to postpone that delivery. No, final date is fixed. The Minister could postpone delivery until doomsday. The Minister has not come to the Committee to set the people free: he has come to ask the Committee to set him free—to set him free from the discipline of the 1948 Act and to give him unlimited powers of postponement for the future.
The Amendment seeks to limit the power. But it does something more than that. It distinguishes between one kind of property and another, and proposes a final date of not later than 1954 for valuations other than valuations of dwelling-houses under the provisions of Part IV of the 1948 Act. It prescribes a year later, 1955, as the final year for the delivery of the new lists for dwelling houses under the provisions of Part IV. The reason for distinguishing between


dwelling-houses and business premises is that the work which has been going on in the valuation offices over the last two years has distinguished between the two.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) made an order instructing the valuation officers to suspend all new valuations of dwelling-houses to concentrate on the new valuations for business premises. For the last 12 months there has been concentration on business and miscellaneous premises. How far has this work gone, and how much remains to be done? If valuation officers put their time to good advantage—as I am sure they have—work on the new valuation lists for business premises must be well advanced. If so, there is no reason why new valuation lists for business premises should not be delivered and come into effect before those for dwelling-houses.
It is more important that the business premises valuations should not be unduly delayed, because it is there that the difference between old and new valuations will be most substantial. Under existing valuations, business premises generally are getting off very lightly. The new valuation lists will correct the obvious inadequacy of many of the assessments prevailing on business premises. It is in that field that local authorities will look for higher rateable value and a greater yield in the rates themselves.
The Minister scarcely gave the House enough information on how he was going to complete the job. He said he was hoping to get it done in 1955 or 1956 at the latest, but he said little to support his estimate. Now that the Minister is adopting, as I am certain he is, a different basis of valuation for private dwelling-houses, he should enlist into the Inland Revenue staff officers experienced in rating and valuation, who have had long experience of tracking down the fugitive person known as "the hypothetical tenant," to get on with the new valuation lists on the chosen basis. Anyhow, now the Minister has abandoned the 1948 basis of valuation he will find it much easier than it would otherwise have been.
I hope the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment, which is only a reasonable curb upon otherwise unlimited freedom to postpone the delivery of new valuation lists for ever without

check by this House. The date I mentioned seems reasonable in the circumstances; I see no administrative inconvenience, or any other for that matter, in introducing one part of the valuation list before the other, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will regard the Amendment as a constructive effort to assist him in his task.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: This is no time at which to discuss at any length the principles of rating and valuation, and I think it would be in the interests of the House if we could get an answer as quickly as possible from the Minister. I hope he will "come clean" and tell us what plans and ideas are running through the mind of his right hon. Friend in regard to the new system of valuation which we think he may be going to introduce in due course. It would help us to judge these matters fairly if we could know what was in his mind.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My right hon. Friend wishes me to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) for giving him advance notice of some points he wished to make.
In answer to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), may I say that, since the Second Reading of the Bill, it has become increasingly clear that the present system of valuation is totally unworkable, and my right hon. Friend has not yet made up his mind what new system he should ask the House to approve in its place. One thing is clear—when he makes up his mind, he will have to come to the House and ask for fresh legislation. If he does not know what system of valuation will be adopted, he can hardly be asked what time he will complete his plans.

Mr. Houghton: But the Minister himself put a date to his own expectations in the matter, and I am only trying to assist him.

Mr. Marples: Whereas the Minister is asking for an Order for another year, the Amendment has the effect of making him come to the House for fresh legislation, and I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that in no circumstances could the Minister accept the Amendment on that particular issue.
The second thing which the Amendment does is to alter the assessment dates and impose them on the public in two stages. Part of the new assessments will be levied 12 months earlier than normal under the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved. Let us look at the background. This Act was passed in 1948 and some assessments come in in 1955 and some in 1954. There is an advantage of one year, but the disadvantages are extremely great.
First, we get inequality between one ratepayer and another, which causes discontent. If the new rate were higher, the person on whom the burden would fall would say, "Why should I pay this, when the other chap's figure is lower?" and, the other way round, some people would ask, "Why did the other chap get the advantage of 12 months before I did?" The hon. Gentleman is an expert in tax matters. Does he think that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to alter the basis of assessment for Income Tax, it would be right and proper to impose it on one section of the community 12 months earlier than on any other?

Mr. Houghton: If that section of the community had been inadequately taxed for years, as business premises have been. I should say that he would be fully justified in bringing the level of taxation into line in both cases.

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to impose additional rates on something, which he says he does, he must bring forward another Amendment.
The second reason my right hon. Friend cannot accept this Amendment is that it would have great inequality between one local authority and another—greater than now exists—in regard to the Exchequer equalisation grants, and would alter the total rate collected and the total rateable value, which would mean an increasing muddle with the Exchequer equalisation grant. Therefore,, if it were done in this manner it would cause great unfairness and discontent all round.
The Government recognise that the rating system is in a muddle, and they would like to put it right at the earliest possible moment; but they would like to do it as fairly and uniformly as possible. The Government consider it would be wrong to do it in a piecemeal fashion,

as that would be inefficient and would result in inequalities and unfairness. Therefore, we ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
I would also point out to the hon. Member for Sowerby that the uncertainties in the Bill of 1948 were scarcely of the present Government's making. The previous Administration had four years in which to try to make it work, and it is hardly reasonable to pin my right hon. Friend down to a specific date for a method of assessment on which he has not yet made up his mind and on which the House has not yet agreed to legislate.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: We find this rather disappointing. We had hoped that in the light of the friendly discussions that took place on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman would think it was best on balance to separate the dwelling-houses from the other hereditaments with regard to the speed with which the new valuation was carried out, since we understood the difficulties he has spoken about had arisen principally, if not wholly, with regard to the dwelling-houses. We thought, therefore, that a considerable advance towards fairness would be made if the new valuation basis, which we understood was not to be substantially changed for the hereditaments other than houses, could at once be put into effect.
The Parliamentary Secretary has resisted this Amendment on behalf of his right hon. Friend, and of course it is true that this is only a postponing Bill and that there will be an opportunity at a later date to reconsider the whole matter. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the rating system was in a muddle, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is a great historical authority on these matters, whispered to me that it has been in a muddle ever since the year 1601. That may be true—

Mr. Ede: It is true.

Mr. Dalton: I was not trying to detract from the historical researches of my right hon. Friend.
We shall have an opportunity to consider this again, and even though this Amendment is not accepted now by the Government, I hope they will not unduly delay bringing before the House their


considered proposals on this matter. That being so, I would advise my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out from "be," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
of no effect unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
This is a simple Amendment. It seeks merely to convert one form of procedure into another. The form of procedure I propose in the Amendment is, I understand, known as the affirmative Resolution procedure; that is to say, the Minister must go to each House of Parliament for an affirmative Resolution to his Order before it becomes effective. In view of the fact, as I mentioned a moment ago, that the Minister has limited powers of postponement, it would seem desirable if he is making Orders for postponement, that he should report to the House before they become effective, and obtain approval of them.

8.30 a.m.

Mr. Marples: I regret that it is not a very profitable morning for the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend cannot accept this Amendment either, because it seeks to make any Order that postpones re-valuation subject to affirmative Resolution by both Houses. But the Order must depend on how far the Inland Revenue are advanced with their work, and this is a matter of fact and not of policy. The Order postponing the re-valuation will have to be made as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent—probably the following day—and to discuss the date of the first postponement immediately thereafter, and with the affirmative procedure, would be pointless.
The point of policy will arise on any future Order that may become necessary. Although Clause 1 (4) is based on Section 142 of the Local Government Act, which says
any power to make orders conferred by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument
it does not need even an Order to be laid or debated. If the Order was annulled by the negative procedure—and that could not happen until after 31st December—the effect would be that there would

be no valuation lists until after April, 1953. No rates could then be collected, which would create great difficulties in local government.

Mr. Ede: I feel very disappointed at that answer, because the last thing anyone would wish is that this matter should be buried after today and forgotten. After all, no matter when the rating system got into a muddle, it has been in a muddle for a long time, as anyone who has served on an assessment committee knows. There ought to be some way in which Parliament will be reminded from time to time of the progress the Minister is making in his researches.
I know the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the work of local government, and I think he would desire that this matter should be kept in front of the public. I hope that in another place some opportunity may be found for inserting something which will ensure that the matter shall not be lost sight of, and that through either the negative procedure, or, as I prefer, the affirmative procedure, it would be possible from time to time to find out how the matter has got on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this between now and the time the Bill reaches another place.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. John Edwards: It is common knowledge that the staffs of valuation panels have been reduced, and the effect of this Bill may be to reduce further these panels. The Committee should be assured that compensation on full ordinary terms will be available to any staffs declared redundant as a direct consequence of the passing of this Measure.

Mr. Charles Pannell: A considerable number of local government staff were transferred for this work, and I have heard of one case, an officer from an authority near Newcastle, who considers that his services will be dispensed with, and he will go back to a minor post in local government. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not give a light answer on this, but will give an assurance that where members of the staff are transferred in good faith from local government to this new branch, their cases will be looked at from the point of view of their


terms of service being disadvantaged by legislation. There is a great deal of unrest among the staff, and the hon. Gentleman might look at some special cases which have been brought to the attention of hon. Gentlemen.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: There stands on the Order Paper in my name a new Clause—"Compensation to officers"—but it may be that when we reach that new Clause you, Sir Charles, will consider that it is not in order.

The Chairman: I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman now that it is not in order, for several reasons.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I anticipated that you might take that view, but in the circumstances I would express the hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to the point which has just been put to him. It is the case that a certain number—not a very large number but a certain number—of officers employed upon valuation panels may be affected by the postponement of the coming into force of the new valuation lists, and in those circumstances it would seem likely that these officers should be treated in the customary way, and that any loss of office or any diminution of emoluments should be the subject of compensation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give consideration at some later stage to the position of the officers who will be affected in the way described.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have a little difficulty in dealing precisely with this matter for the same reason that would have led you, Sir Charles, to rule my hon. and learned Friend's new Clause out of order, because if we accepted it in that form it would throw, or might have thrown, a charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. Dalton: Have another Financial Resolution.

Mr. Macmillan: Another Financial Resolution would keep us a little longer than I anticipated on this Bill.
In the past there has been an arrangement for compensation when there is a complete change of machinery, when one whole function came to an end, but merely the reduction of the staff required is not in itself normally a reason for

compensation. Therefore, I am sure hon. Members opposite will realise that we cannot introduce a principle which, if it were pressed to other cases, might become a very serious charge, not in this case but in parallel cases. We shall, of course, look sympathetically at this matter, and I will bring it to the notice of my colleagues directly responsible for this Department. We shall try to do everything we can to avoid hardship in individual cases that may be brought to our notice. I hope the Committee will realise that we could not really properly go further than that in a matter of this kind.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

COLONIAL LOANS BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Adjourned Debate on Question [7th November]:
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Statutory Instrument laid or laid in draft before the House, being an Instrument or Draft of an Instrument upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent, or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period;
(iii) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;
(iv) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;


(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(vi) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification to Mr. Speaker under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation;

and if they so determine, to report to that effect.

Question again proposed.

8.40 a.m.

Mr. Bing: I really think I must make this last protest now. It is quite scandalous that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have said they thought Statutory Instruments ought to be discussed, and who were sent back to see that Parliament had a proper scrutiny of Statutory Instruments, should, when the very Committee set up to deal with them had a number of flaws in its composition, flaws noticed by the Members of that Committee itself, allow no adequate time at all for debating the Motion to set up the Committee. Hon. Members of this House have been placed in the position that they could either debate this Motion or lose tomorrow's business. That is a complete abuse of the method of conducting the business of the House, and I only wish the Leader of the House were here so that I could say it to his face.

Committee nominated of Mr. Blyton, Mr. Harold Davies, Mr. Eric Fletcher, Mr. Higgs, Mr. Hector Hughes, Mr. Jennings, Dr. King, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Renton, Sir Harold Roper and Mr. Spence: To have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker: Power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to report the Minutes of their Proceedings from time to time: Power to require any Government Department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Instrument or Draft which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Instrument or Draft: Three to be the Quorum: Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any Instrument or Draft the

Committee do afford to any Government Department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the Department think fit: Power to report to the House from time to time any Memoranda submitted or other evidence given to the Committee by any Government Department in explanation of any Instrument or Draft: Power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any Instrument.—[Mr. Wills.]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES

Mr. Profumo discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates and that Mr. William Shepherd added.—[Mr. Wills.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH AND COLONIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

8.42 a.m.

Mr. M. Follick: I am very lucky, after waiting so long, still to have the opportunity of making use of the lucky result of the Ballot which gave me this Adjournment, because I wish to speak about the Commonwealth and the Colonies on the very day—it is still Thursday—that the conference of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers starts its discussions. I want to put before the House some suggestions which, I think, are constructive, and although I know that they are very contentious I would point out that what may seem contentious today may, in a very short time, appear to the world at large to be very constructive.
The United Kingdom, with nearly 51 million inhabitants, has no chance whatever of existing on its own, and we shall have to see in what way we can tighten the bonds that bind us all together in the Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire. I remember that shortly after Dr. Malan became Prime Minister in South Africa, I was, I think, the first politician from this country to visit him. I went with Sir Evelyn Baring, and I asked Dr. Malan whether South Africa


intended to go out of the Commonwealth; because we were then very afraid of what might happen. He replied, definitely, "No," but said that what he wanted to see was a different sort of relationship; that he no longer wanted the Mother country relation with the Dominions, but to have all sister nations in the Commonwealth.
When I returned to this country I reported that in this House, and ever since then the Leader of the Opposition, at least, has called these countries the sister nations of the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom is now also a sister nation of the Commonwealth. But the threads which bind us together are like gossamer, and unless we do something to strengthen them there may be a gradual dissolution of the Commonwealth.
We see that Canada is not only appointing her diplomatic missions with Ministers, but actually embassies; and not only in the most important centres of the world, in minor posts like in Mexico City, in Caracas and in Ankara. We see a definite trend away from the Empire and Commonwealth. In the Pacific we see Australia and New Zealand being drawn into the Pacific Treaty, in which we were not included. These are disturbing trends, and we have to see how we can knit ourselves together and mingle our affairs so as to find common interests. We have to make ourselves dependent on each other rather than upon ourselves.
In the first place I would like to see the Colonial Empire taken out of the hands of Whitehall and made a responsibility of the whole Commonwealth, so that every sister nation would have a mutual interest with all the other sister nations in the functions of the Colonial Empire. This is not a new question. It has already been raised in the Canadian Parliament. Mr. Neil McLean raised it on 16th March last. He suggested that Bermuda and the West Indies should be handed over to Canada for responsible functions as Colonies. I would rather have seen that than what has happened recently in the handing over of responsibility for Bermuda's defence to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
If the Colonial Empire became the responsibility of all the sister nations, so that all had some voice in decisions affecting the Colonial Empire, they would

have to come together to debate and decide upon matters. I would like to see fewer Governors drawn from this country. This has been done almost monotonously. Governors could be drawn from eminent citizens from all parts of the Commonwealth. I do not see why there could not be an outstanding Canadian as Governor of Australia, for instance, or an eminent South African as Governor of New Zealand.
I should also like to see prominent British negroes given high functions of this description. I do not see why we could not have a British negro Governor of Uganda or of the Gold Coast. We have these people in Jamaica and Trinidad capable of fulfilling those functions. In the New York State Assembly and Senate there are two British-born negroes as representatives. One is from Trinidad, the other from St. Kitts. It is true they have become United States citizens, but they must be eminent negroes to have achieved such distinction in a land which they have only adopted as their own.
The one from St. Kitts is Bertram Baker and is in the New York State Assembly; the other, in the Senate, is Julius Archibald. If the Americans can make use of British-born negroes in the highest positions of Government, why cannot we do so? Is there any reason why we cannot appoint a Jamaican or a Trinidadian, or someone from any other part of the British Empire, to take over these high functions? It would bind us to the Empire.
We must remember that the French were doing this before the war. They were appointing their own coloured people. In fact, in the Chad Territory, in 1940, if it had not been for the negro Governor, we might have lost the war before the Battle of Britain. His name was Félix Eboué, and he was a negro from French Guiana. When every other territory of France went over to Petain, the only territory that remained loyal to the British Treaty with France was the Chad Territory. If it had not been for the decision of that Governor to remain loyal to the Treaty, we might not have been able to send our aircraft from West Africa via the Chad Territory to Egypt.
Then there is the case of Dr. Bunche, a man who succeeded in a diplomatic mission in which white diplomats had failed. Why not treat British citizens as


such, irrespective of any other race or face or anything else? I do not see why we should not have an eminent Pakistani as Governor of Zanzibar. I do not see why we could not use fully our different races of citizens. There are sister nations of the Commonwealth who rely on United Kingdom embassies or legations. Why should we not have Australians or Canadians as ambassadors in those places?
After all, the present Prime Minister, during the war, made use of Mr. Casey in this way. There is no reason why we cannot extend that practice and make it part of the function of the Commonwealth and Empire. There is no reason why we should not appoint negro ambassadors, important British citizens, to republics like Liberia and Haiti and Abyssinia. Also, although it is a difficult subject to bring up, we might have tried, in the case of the East African problem, to negotiate with an eminent negro there, whether a Jamaican or Trinidadian. He could have gone to the Kikuyu and explained, "We have achieved all this without violence. You follow our example and you will achieve the same. In Jamaica whites and blacks live uniformly and comfortably together and there is no reason why, with proper negotiations and behaviour, the same cannot happen in East Africa."
Let us see if we cannot mingle the different ways and new ideas, bringing the whole Commonwealth together as partners; and not only members of the Commonwealth, but people whose interests are bound up together. In that way we should consolidate the Commonwealth and Empire. I am quite sure that we can find in our Empire the people we need. I do not see why a Singalese should not be Governor of Hong Kong, or Singapore or an Indian British Ambassador to China. Why always somebody from the United Kingdom, making the United Kingdom still the Mother country of this Commonwealth?
I should like to quote from a newspaper in New Zealand—one of our most loyal parts of the Commonwealth, decrying the way we make use of the Commonwealth Relations Office; not giving it proper treatment, and thinking of it as something of a toy. This news-

paper the "New Zealand Herald" stated as recently as 25th November of this year that
today the British Commonwealth Relations Office looked like developing into a sort of hitching-post of British politics. Ministers were tethered to it for short periods, but soon made way for newcomers. Lord Swinton will be the sixth Commonwealth Relations Secretary in seven years.
Here is a comment from one of our most loyal parts of the Commonwealth, and unless we do get down to this fact and bind ourselves together, we shall see a gradual dissolution and drifting away. In this House there are six hon. Members who are Canadians. I am not protesting against that; it is the right procedure. What I protest against is that we do not get such treatment right through the Commonwealth. British citizens should be accepted right through the Commonwealth, just as we have mixed Canadians with us here in this House.
In different parts of the Commonwealth I imagine that there are nearly 100 million negroes, but we have not got one here in the House of Commons. In the past, we have had an Indian—the only one so far as I know. This House is not representative as part of the Commonwealth; nor are the other sister nations. If we go on in this way, we shall drift apart. Members of the Commonwealth and Empire must be accepted all over the Commonwealth as equal citizens. Unless we do that, we shall not be fair to the Commonwealth and Empire. If we could only have one or two negroes in this House, what a difference it would make in those new territories where we are building up and proceeding towards self-government.
I want to give the Minister time to reply to these very difficult questions, although I do not want to give him too much time because these are questions he cannot really answer. The answer must come from the feeling in the country, and the development of the whole idea. If only we could develop this so that we really belonged to each other, with all our interests mutual, and realised that the Colonial Empire is a responsibility for each one of us! Then we should build up something the world has never seen. We should have built from settlement to Colony, to self-governing Colony, to Dominion, and then to sister nation. Now the crown needs to be set on the whole


thing. Build us up together, jumble us up together; make our interests interwoven. Then we shall have an Empire second to none; greater than the world has ever seen before.

9.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) counted himself fortunate in having this Adjournment Motion on the occasion of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference and I think he is indeed fortunate to have the opportunity of putting forward these interesting suggestions. He made his observations from the point of view—with which I venture to disagree a little—that the Commonwealth links are disintegrating.

Mr. Follick: Dissolving.

Mr. Foster: Well, dissolving, as the hon. Member says. I beg to differ from that. The Commonwealth is not disintegrating or dissolving in any sense whatever and I do not think that the instances the hon. Member quoted showed that at all.
He said that the Canadian Government had inaugurated some new representative posts in Latin-America and gave an instance of the Canadian Government starting an embassy. The Commonwealth countries are independent countries and have their diplomatic representation where they wish. In some countries where there is no need in their view for separate diplomatic posts they agree that one or other of the Commonwealth countries should make their diplomatic representations for them. I do not think that the fact that the Canadian Government may have set up an embassy in any particular country shows in the slightest that the Commonwealth links are dissolving.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that Canada appointed its first Minister as long ago as 1920.

Mr. Foster: I am much obliged to the right hon. Member. I think it is important that it should not go out from this House that we really consider appointing a diplomatic representative indicates in any way a lessening of the Commonwealth ties.
When the hon. Member was mentioning Mr. Casey it occurred to me what a happy experience it was that he was appointed Governor of Bengal during the war and we had the advantages of a great and experienced Australian in that post. As the hon. Member said, his questions are not questions I can answer today, but Her Majesty's Government will note with interest what the hon. Member has said and the suggestions he made. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who are both concerned with some of the suggestions, will have them drawn to their attention. I also feel that, on the occasion of the Prime Ministers being gathered together in London in conference, the hon. Member's Adjournment debate will no doubt be brought to their notice. I conclude by again saying how fortunate he has been and how interested we have been in his suggestions. They will be carefully noted by all concerned.

9.4 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend on having raised this debate at this important juncture. I should like it to be put on record that, on the eve of this conference, we in this House, whatever our political party, do not forget our indebtedness to the Colonies.
I will not go into the political cut and thrust of debate, but by the sale of raw materials this country is in debt to many under-developed peoples in our Empire. It is the bounden duty of an advanced country like ours to find a way, as soon as possible, to repay those unrequited exports. We hope that at the Commonwealth conference we shall do our utmost to repay the debts we owe the people struggling for a standard of life which we should all be happy to see them attain.

9.5 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Might I press upon the hon. and learned Gentleman one matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) raised and which I think is most important now? I should like him to pay attention to the possibility of appointing Canadians, Australians, and so on, to the governorships of some of the important Colonies. That would


be an important step forward. We were giving some thought to this matter when we were in office. I hope that careful attention will be given to the question.

Mr. J. Foster: The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs is present and has carefully noted the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I am glad that the hon. Member for Loughborough persisted in his Adjournment.

There was no suggestion by us that he should abandon it. It is good that at the end of a long day's work it should go out from this House that we are prepared to discuss the Commonwealth and Colonies and to hear interesting suggestions about them in this House.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Nine o'Clock a.m., Friday, 28th November.